On 2020/05/20 8:31, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 11:38:52PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> I found that "received_lsn" is still used in high-availability.sgml.
>> We should apply the following change in high-availability?
>>
>> - view's <literal>received_lsn</literal> indicates that WAL is being
>> + view's <literal>flushed_lsn</literal> indicates that WAL is being
>
> Oops, thanks. Will fix.
Thanks for the fix!
>
>> BTW, we have pg_last_wal_receive_lsn() that returns the same lsn as
>> pg_stat_wal_receiver.flushed_lsn. Previously both used the term "receive"
>> in their names, but currently not. IMO it's better to use the same term in
>> those names for the consistency, but it's not good idea to rename
>> pg_last_wal_receive_lsn() to something like pg_last_wal_receive_lsn().
>> I have no better idea for now. So I'm ok with the current names.
>
> I think you mean renaming pg_last_wal_receive_lsn() to something like
> pg_last_wal_flushed_lsn(), no?
No, that's not good idea, as I told upthread.
> This name may become confusing because
> we lose the "receive" idea in the function, that we have with the
> "receiver" part of pg_stat_wal_receiver. Maybe something like that,
> though that's long:
> - pg_last_wal_receive_flushed_lsn()
> - pg_last_wal_receive_written_lsn()
Yes, that's long.
> Anyway, a rename of this function does not strike me as strongly
> necessary, as that's less tied with the shared memory structure, and
> we document that pg_last_wal_receive_lsn() tracks the current LSN
> received and flushed. I am actually wondering if in the future it may
> not be better to remove this function, but it has no maintenance
> cost either so I would just let it as-is.
Yeah, agreed.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION