From: | Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Standby catch up state change |
Date: | 2013-10-16 10:30:18 |
Message-ID: | 379CE38B-C498-4675-8083-E7879663F355@gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On 16-Oct-2013, at 3:45 pm, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> On 2013-10-16 11:03:12 +0530, Pavan Deolasee wrote:
>> I think you are right. Someone who understands the replication code very
>> well advised us to use that log message as a way to measure how much time
>> it takes to send all the missing WAL to a remote standby on a slow WAN
>> link. While it worked well for all measurements, when we use a middleware
>> which caches a lot of traffic on the sender side, this log message was very
>> counter intuitive. It took several more minutes for the standby to actually
>> receive all the WAL files and catch up after the message was displayed on
>> the master side. But then as you said, may be relying on the message was
>> not the best way to measure the time.
>
> Query pg_stat_replication instead, that has the flush position.
>
Yeah, that's what we are doing now.
Thanks,
Pavan
> Greetings,
>
> Andres Freund
>
> --
> Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
> PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | ankit bhardwaj | 2013-10-16 11:17:16 | Adding new syntax in postgre sql |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2013-10-16 10:15:20 | Re: Standby catch up state change |