From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: timestamp of the last replayed transaction |
Date: | 2010-11-08 16:05:28 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTi=4=j2-0eJEu2-OWjEzwWDvRmjLGphJpKcA0+cx@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 6:00 AM, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 9:58 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> This looks good, but how about adding:
>>
>> if (!RecoveryInProgress())
>> PG_RETURN_NULL();
>>
>> Otherwise, if we're in Hot Standby mode for a while and then enter
>> normal running, wouldn't this still return a (stale) value?
>
> Yes, but isn't that (stale) value useful to check how far WAL records
> have been replayed, *after failover*?
Oh, OK. I guess that makes sense. One other question - should we say
pg_last_xact_replay_timestamp() rather than
pg_xact_last_replay_timestamp(), for consistency with
pg_last_xlog_replay_location()?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-11-08 16:16:54 | Re: Protecting against unexpected zero-pages: proposal |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2010-11-08 15:55:22 | Re: W3C Specs: Web SQL |