On 2013-10-16 11:03:12 +0530, Pavan Deolasee wrote:
I think you are right. Someone who understands the replication code very
well advised us to use that log message as a way to measure how much time
it takes to send all the missing WAL to a remote standby on a slow WAN
link. While it worked
On 16-Oct-2013, at 3:45 pm, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 2013-10-16 11:03:12 +0530, Pavan Deolasee wrote:
I think you are right. Someone who understands the replication code very
well advised us to use that log message as a way to measure how much time
it takes to send
Hello,
I wonder if there is an issue with the way state change happens
from WALSNDSTATE_CATCHUP to WALSNDSTATE_STREAMING. Please note my question
is solely based on a strange behavior reported by a colleague and my
limited own code reading. The colleague is trying out replication with a
On 2013-10-15 15:51:46 +0530, Pavan Deolasee wrote:
Should we not instead wait for the standby to have received all the WAL
before declaring that it has caught up ? If a failure happens while the
data is still in the sender's buffer, the standby may not actually catch up
to the desired point
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 3:59 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.comwrote:
I don't think that'd be a good idea - the caughtup logic is used to
determine whether we need to wait for further wal to be generated
locally if we haven't got anything else to do. And we only need to do so
when we
On 2013-10-15 16:12:56 +0530, Pavan Deolasee wrote:
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 3:59 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.comwrote:
I don't think that'd be a good idea - the caughtup logic is used to
determine whether we need to wait for further wal to be generated
locally if we haven't got
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.comwrote:
I don't think delaying the message is a good
idea.
Comment in walsender.c says:
/*
* If we're in catchup state, move to streaming. This is an
* important state change for
On 2013-10-15 16:29:47 +0530, Pavan Deolasee wrote:
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.comwrote:
I don't think delaying the message is a good
idea.
Comment in walsender.c says:
/*
* If we're in catchup state, move to
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.comwrote:
I think you're over-intrepreting it.
I think you are right. Someone who understands the replication code very
well advised us to use that log message as a way to measure how much time
it takes to send all the missing
