Ugg. I was confused.
At Wed, 21 Apr 2021 23:06:56 +0900, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@oss.nttdata.com> wrote in > > Hmm. Some words need to be qualified. Attached. > > + If you are using <literal>-X none</literal>, there is no guarantee > on > + the primary that all WAL files required for the backup are archived > at > + the end of backup. > > I don't think that this should be picked up as a limitation of standby > backup. > Because users basically want to make pg_basebackup wait for all > required > WAL files to be archived on the standby, in the standby backup case. Yeah, you're right. I think it is what I thought at first. The last proposal is a result of some confusion.. > When <varname>archive_mode</varname> is set > + to <literal>on</literal> on the > > "on" should be "always"? Yes.. > + standby, <application>pg_basebackup</application> may wait for a > long > + time for all the required WAL files to be archived. In that case, > You > + may need to call <function>pg_switch_wal()</function> on the primary > to > + complete it sooner. > > What about the following description? > > ------------------- > When you are using -X none, if write activity on the primary is low, > pg_basebackup may need to wait a long time for all WAL files required > for > the backup to be archived. It may be useful to run pg_switch_wal > on the primary in order to trigger an immediate WAL file switch and > archiving. > ------------------- Looks far better. regards. -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center