From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: checkpoints are duplicated even while the system is idle |
Date: | 2011-10-06 18:26:50 |
Message-ID: | 4964.1317925610@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> I'm inclined to think that the way to deal with that is not to force out
>> useless WAL data, but to add some sort of explicit "I'm alive" heartbeat
>> signal to the walsender/walreceiver protocol. The hard part of that is
>> to figure out how to expose it where you can see it on the slave side
>> --- or do we have a status view that could handle that?
> As of 9.1, we already have something very much like this, in the
> opposite direction. See wal_receiver_status_interval and
> replication_timeout. I bet we could adapt that slightly to work in
> the other direction, too. But that'll only work with streaming
> replication - do we care about the WAL shipping case?
I can't get excited about the WAL-shipping case. The artifact that we'll
generate a checkpoint record every few minutes does not create enough
WAL volume for WAL-shipping to reliably generate a heartbeat signal.
It'd be way too long between filling up segments if that were the only
WAL data being generated.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | pasman pasmański | 2011-10-06 18:39:38 | Extend extension file_fdw |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-10-06 18:18:29 | Re: checkpoints are duplicated even while the system is idle |