I like the idea ! If it's not too complicated, I'd like to take a stab at it.
Le lun. 1 mars 2021 à 10:16, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju...@gmail.com> a écrit : > On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 4:33 PM Benoit Lobréau <benoit.lobr...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > Le lun. 1 mars 2021 à 08:36, Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> a > écrit : > >> > >> On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 10:03:05AM +0100, Benoit Lobréau wrote: > >> > Done here : https://commitfest.postgresql.org/32/3012/ > >> > >> Documenting that properly for the archive command, as already done for > >> restore_command, sounds good to me. I am not sure that there is much > >> point in doing a cross-reference to the archiving section for one > >> specific field of pg_stat_archiver. > > > > > > I wanted to add a warning that using pg_stat_archiver to monitor the > good health of the > > archiver comes with a caveat in the view documentation itself. But > couldn't find a concise > > way to do it. So I added a link. > > > > If you think it's unnecessary, that's ok. > > Maybe this can be better addressed than with a link in the > documentation. The final outcome is that it can be difficult to > monitor the archiver state in such case. That's orthogonal to this > patch but maybe we can add a new "archiver_start" timestamptz column > in pg_stat_archiver, so monitoring tools can detect a problem if it's > too far away from pg_postmaster_start_time() for instance? >
