| From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Takahiro Itagaki <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: ps display "waiting for max_standby_delay" |
| Date: | 2010-06-11 02:40:34 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTim9m1jG3tnFLr7nFb2c9PPSwT3HETY3JKOWo5YJ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 11:20 AM, Takahiro Itagaki
<itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
>
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
>
>> > how about showing actual waiting time instead?
>> > " waiting for max_standby_delay (%d ms)",
>> > MaxStandbyDelay)
>>
>> Sounds interesting, but how often would the ps statust display be
>> updated? I hope not too often.
>
> We can change the interval of updates to 500ms or so if do it,
> but I rethink ps display is not the best place for the information.
>
> I'd like to modify the additonal message "waiting for max_standby_delay"
> just to "waiting", because we don't use "waiting for statement_timeout"
> for normal queries.
+1
I don't think that it's useful to display the value of max_standby_delay.
> If we need additional information about conflictions in recovery,
> we would supply them with SQL views instead of ps display in 9.1.
+1
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-06-11 03:18:23 | Re: Bug / shortcoming in has_*_privilege |
| Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2010-06-11 02:36:46 | vacuum_defer_cleanup_age |