On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 07:37:02AM -0500, David Steele wrote: > On 3/1/21 8:29 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 01, 2021 at 05:17:06PM +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote: > > > 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? > > > > There may be other solutions as well. I have applied the doc patch > > for now. > > This was applied (except for a small part). Should we now consider this > committed? >
I think that we should consider this as committed.
