On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 10:59 PM, David Steele <da...@pgmasters.net> wrote: > Hi Robert, > > On 8/25/17 4:03 PM, David Steele wrote: >> On 8/25/17 3:26 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >>> On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 3:21 PM, David Steele <da...@pgmasters.net> >>> wrote: >>>> No problem. I'll base it on your commit to capture any changes you >>>> made. >>> >>> Thanks, but you incorporated everything I wanted in response to my >>> first review -- so I didn't tweak it any further. >> >> Thank you for committing that. I'll get the 9.6 patch to you early next >> week. > > Attached is the 9.6 patch. It required a bit more work in func.sgml > than I was expecting so have a close look at that. The rest was mostly > removing irrelevant hunks.
+ switch to the next WAL segment. On a standby, it is not possible to + automatically switch WAL segments, so you may wish to run + <function>pg_switch_wal</function> on the primary to perform a manual + switch. The reason for the switch is to arrange for [...] + WAL segments have been archived. If write activity on the primary is low, it + may be useful to run <function>pg_switch_wal</> on the primary in order to + trigger an immediate segment switch of the last required WAL It seems to me that both portions are wrong. There is no archiving wait on standbys for 9.6, and pg_stop_backup triggers by itself the segment switch, so saying that enforcing pg_switch_wal on the primary is moot. pg_switch_xlog has been renamed to pg_switch_wal in PG10, so the former name applies. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
