On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 10:30 PM, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 6:22 PM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 10:36 PM, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> >> wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 10:12 AM, Masahiko Sawada >> > <sawada.m...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> Since an optional second argument wait_for_archive of pg_stop_backup >> >> has been introduced in PostgreSQL 10 we can choose whether wait for >> >> archiving. But my colleagues found that we can do pg_stop_backup with >> >> wait_for_archive = true on the standby server but it actually doesn't >> >> wait for WAL archiving. Because this behavior is not documented and we >> >> cannot find out it without reading source code it will confuse the >> >> user. >> >> >> >> I think we can raise an error when pg_stop_backup with >> >> wait_for_archive = true is executed on the standby. Attached patch >> >> change it so that. >> > >> > >> > Wouldn't it be better to make it *work*? If you have >> > archive_mode=always, it >> > makes sense to want to wait on the standby as well, does it not? >> > >> >> Yes, ideally it will be better to make it wait for WAL archiving on >> standby server when archive_mode=always. But I think it would be for >> PG11 item, and this item is for PG10. >> > > I'm not sure. I think this can be considered a bug in the implementation for > 10, and as such is "open for fixing". However, it's not a very critical bug > so I doubt it should be a release blocker, but if someone wants to work on a > fix I think we should commit it. >
I agree with you. I'd like to hear opinions from other hackers as well. Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
