From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: How can we tell how far behind the standby is? |
Date: | 2010-11-06 00:39:04 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTi=wmjqDHVNjLLRVsQgtkZx8TmCw8-8oBDt2Ejqx@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 2:46 PM, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
> I'm continuing in my efforts now to document how to deploy and manage
> replication on our wiki. One of the things a DBA needs to do is to use
> pg_current_xlog_location() (and related functions) to check how far
> behind the master the standby is.
>
> However, there's some serious problems with that:
>
> (1) comparing these numbers is quite mathematically complex -- and, for
> that matter, undocumented.
>
> (2) pg_rotate_xlog and/or archive_timeout will create a "gap" in the
> xlog positions, quite a large one if it happens near the beginning of a
> file. There is no way for any monitoring on the standby to tell the
> difference between a gap created by forced rotation as opposed to being
> most of a file behind, until the next record shows up. Hello, nagios
> false alerts!
>
> (3) There is no easy way to relate a difference in log positions to an
> amount of time.
>
> I'll work on some tools to make this a bit more palatable, but I
> disagree with earlier assertions that we have the replication monitoring
> "done". There's still a *lot* of work to do.
I've heard the same complaint, and I agree with your concerns.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-11-06 00:58:31 | Re: timestamp of the last replayed transaction |
Previous Message | Daniel Farina | 2010-11-05 23:49:20 | Re: ALTER TABLE ... IF EXISTS feature? |