Hi,
On 2020-03-23 10:37:16 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 2020-03-05 08:06, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> > | [20866] LOG: replication terminated by primary server
> > | [20866] DETAIL: End of WAL reached on timeline 1 at 0/30001C8.
> > | [20866] FATAL: could not send end-of-streaming message to primary: no COPY in progress
IMO it's a bug that we see this FATAL. I seem to recall that we didn't
use to get that?
> > | [20851] LOG: reached end of WAL at 0/30001C8 on timeline 1 in archive during standby mode
> > | [20851] DETAIL: invalid record length at 0/30001C8: wanted 24, got 0
> >
> > I changed the above to the below, which looks more adequate.
> >
> > | [24271] LOG: replication terminated by primary server on timeline 1 at 0/3000240.
> > | [24271] FATAL: could not send end-of-streaming message to primary: no COPY in progress
> > | [24267] LOG: reached end of WAL at 0/3000240 on timeline 1 in archive during standby mode
> > | [24267] DETAIL: invalid record length at 0/3000240: wanted 24, got 0
>
> Is this the before and after? That doesn't seem like a substantial
> improvement to me. You still get the "scary" message at the end.
It seems like a minor improvement - folding the DETAIL into the message
makes sense to me here. But it indeed doesn't really address the main
issue.
I think we don't want to elide the information about how the end of the
WAL was detected - there are some issues where I found that quite
helpful. But we could reformulate it to be clearer that it's informative
output, not a bug. E.g. something roughly like
LOG: reached end of WAL at 0/3000240 on timeline 1 in archive during standby mode
DETAIL: End detected due to invalid record length at 0/3000240: expected 24, got 0
(I first elided the position in the DETAIL, but it could differ from the
one in LOG)
I don't find that very satisfying, but I can't come up with something
that provides the current information, while being less scary than my
suggestion?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
