On 2020/02/19 21:46 Fujii Masao <
masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>:
>> I agree to the former, I think RecoveryWalInterval works well enough.
>RecoveryWalInterval sounds confusing to me...
IMHO as a user, I prefer RecoveryRetrieveRetryInterval because
it's easy to understand this wait_event is related to the
parameter 'wal_retrieve_retry_interval'.
Also from the point of balance, the explanation of
RecoveryRetrieveRetryInterval is lengthy, but I
sometimes feel explanations of wait_events in the
manual are so simple that it's hard to understand
well.
> Waiting when WAL data is not available from any kind of sources
> (local, archive or stream) before trying again to retrieve WAL data,
I think 'local' means pg_wal here, but the comment on
WaitForWALToBecomeAvailable() says checking pg_wal in
standby mode is 'not documented', so I'm a little bit worried
that users may be confused.
Regards,
--
Torikoshi Atsushi