From: | "myungkyu(dot)lim" <myungkyu(dot)lim(at)samsung(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "'Michael Paquier'" <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
Cc: | "'Masahiko Sawada'" <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, "'PostgreSQL-development'" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, <woosung(dot)sohn(at)samsung(dot)com>, <don(dot)hong(at)samsung(dot)com> |
Subject: | RE: [Todo item] Add entry creation timestamp column to pg_stat_replication |
Date: | 2018-12-04 07:24:25 |
Message-ID: | 03f901d48ba2$6398d430$2aca7c90$@samsung.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>> I have been looking at this patch more in-depth, and you missed one
>> critical thing: hot standby feedback messages also include the
>> timestamp the client used when sending the message, so if we want to
>> track the latest time when a message has been sent we should track it
>> as much as the timestamp from status update messages.
>>
>> Fixing that and updating a couple of comments and variables, I am
>> finishing with the attached. Thoughts?
Thanks! I missed it..:(
>Another thing which is crossing my mind is if it would make sense to report
>the timestamp of the last HS feedback message and the timestamp of the last
>status update message into two separate columns. As the point of this
>field is to help with the debugging of mostly idle systems it seems to me
>that merging both is fine, but I'd like to hear extra opinions about that.
I think purpose of this field,
that react interval check and debugging on idle system.
So, merging both is better.
(Is 'Reply' and 'HSFeedback' worth measuring separately?)
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2018-12-04 07:36:04 | Re: Use durable_unlink for .ready and .done files for WAL segment removal |
Previous Message | Fabien COELHO | 2018-12-04 07:16:24 | Re: doc - improve description of default privileges |