On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 8:47 AM, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 9:11 PM, Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 10:38 AM, Michael Paquier
> <michael.paquier@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 7:23 PM, Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >
>> > I think that pg_stat_wal_receiver should be crossreferenced in
>> > https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.6/static/hot-standby. , near thehtml
>> > same
>> > place which it crossreferences table 9-79. That would make it more
>> > discoverable.
>>
>> Hm. Hot standby may not involve streaming replication. What about a
>> paragraph here instead?
>>
>> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/warm- standby.html#streaming- replication
>>
>> In the monitoring subsection, we could tell that on a standby the WAL
>> receiver status can be retrieved from this view when changes are
>> streamed. What do you think?
>
>
> That works for me.
What do you think about the patch attached?
Looks OK. Should it mention specifically "On a hot standby" rather than "On a standby"? Otherwise people might be left confused on how they are supposed to do this on a generic standby. It is the kind of thing which is obvious once you know it, but confusing the first time you encounter it.
<para>
You can retrieve a list of WAL sender processes via the
- <link linkend="monitoring-stats-views-table">
+ <link linkend="monitoring-stats-dynamic-views-table">
<literal>pg_stat_replication</></link> view. Large differences between
In the previous paragraph I have noticed that the link reference is
incorrect. pg_stat_replication is listed under
monitoring-stats-dynamic-views-table.
Yes, that is clearly wrong. But why not link directly to the description of the view itself, pg-stat-replication-view, rather than the correct table which mentions the view? Is that the accepted docs style to link to the more generic place? (Same thing applies to your patch, it could link directly to pg-stat-wal-receiver-view.
Sorry for the delay, it took me awhile to get the new doc build system to work (solution seems to be, "Don't use CentOS6 anymore")
Cheers,
Jeff
