On Tue, Feb 6, 2024 at 3:33 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 6, 2024 at 1:09 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 6, 2024 at 3:19 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I think users can refer to LOGs to see if it has changed since the
> > > first time it was configured. I tried by existing parameter and see
> > > the following in LOG:
> > > LOG: received SIGHUP, reloading configuration files
> > > 2024-02-06 11:38:59.069 IST [9240] LOG: parameter "autovacuum" changed to "on"
> > >
> > > If the user can't confirm then it is better to follow the steps
> > > mentioned in the patch. Do you want something else to be written in
> > > docs for this? If so, what?
> >
> > IIUC even if a wrong slot name is specified to standby_slot_names or
> > even standby_slot_names is empty, the standby server might not be
> > lagging behind the subscribers depending on the timing. But when
> > checking it the next time, the standby server might lag behind the
> > subscribers. So what I wanted to know is how the user can confirm if a
> > failover-enabled subscription is ensured not to go in front of
> > failover-candidate standbys (i.e., standbys using the slots listed in
> > standby_slot_names).
> >
>
> But isn't the same explained by two steps ((a) Firstly, on the
> subscriber node check the last replayed WAL. (b) Next, on the standby
> server check that the last-received WAL location is ahead of the
> replayed WAL location on the subscriber identified above.) in the
> latest *_0004 patch.
>
Additionally, I would like to add that the users can use the queries
mentioned in the doc after the primary has failed and before promoting
the standby. If she wants to do that when both primary and standby are
available, the value of 'standby_slot_names' on primary should be
referred. Isn't those two sufficient that there won't be false
positives?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
