From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: system views for walsender activity |
Date: | 2011-01-07 13:33:58 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTiknc5w8tvmSdHVdKdUGq=KTRWAissjxNtvQRD33@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 8:09 AM, Itagaki Takahiro
<itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 21:48, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
>>> * pg_stat_replication
>>> * pg_stat_standby (not yet)
>>
>> Just to keep the bikeshedding up, should it in this case not be
>> pg_stat_replication_master and pg_stat_replication_standby or such?
>> Replication applies to both master and slave...
>
> The reason I didn't use term "master" is that pg_stat_replication is
> information of *standby* servers on master server. Of course,
> wal senders are processes in the master, but users probably think
> they are the location standby servers receives.
To my way of thinking, pg_stat_walsender and pg_stat_walreceiver would
be more clear than pg_stat_replication_master and
pg_stat_replication_slave.
However, my way of thinking is of course not the only way of thinking.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Zotov | 2011-01-07 13:34:28 | Re: join functions |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-01-07 13:16:33 | LOCK for non-tables |