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>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Sync Rep v19 |
Date: | 2011-03-11 13:02:25 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTi=9itH+WDUxB-RemrcW3L3QiMFkWkk3d8t_eR+a@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 7:08 AM, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 5:50 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 3:29 PM, Dimitri Fontaine
>> <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr> wrote:
>>> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>>> they are, but there's no easy way to figure out what that means in
>>>> terms of wall-clock time, which I think would be useful.
>>>
>>> Jan Wieck had a detailed proposal to make that happen at last developper
>>> meeting, but then ran out of time to implement it for 9.1 it seems. The
>>> idea was basically to have a ticker in core, an SRF that would associate
>>> txid_snapshot with wall clock time. Lots of good things would come from
>>> that.
>>>
>>> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-05/msg01209.php
>>>
>>> Of course if you think that's important enough for you to implement it
>>> between now and beta, that would be great :)
>>
>> I think that's actually something a little different, and more
>> complicated, but I do think it'd be useful. I was hoping there was a
>> simple way to get some kind of time-based information into
>> pg_stat_replication, but if there isn't, there isn't.
>
> How about sending the timestamp of last applied transaction
> (i.e., this is the return value of pg_last_xact_replay_timestamp)
> from the standby to the master, and reporting it in
> pg_stat_replication? Then you can see the lag by comparing
> it with current_timestamp.
>
> But since the last replay timestamp doesn't advance (but
> current timestamp advances) if there is no work on the master,
> the calculated lag might be unexpectedly too large. So, to
> calculate the exact lag, I'm thinking that we should introduce
> new function which returns the timestamp of the last transaction
> written in the master.
>
> Thought?
Hmm... where would we get that value from? And what if no
transactions are running on the master?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-03-11 13:03:54 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Document that the parenthesized VACUUM syntax is deprecated, not |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2011-03-11 12:58:45 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Document that the parenthesized VACUUM syntax is deprecated, not |