From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Jaime Casanova <jaime(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_stats_recovery view |
Date: | 2012-02-02 08:12:11 |
Message-ID: | CAHGQGwFhXiJoAOGw+RKVR5yjv_t+i4KD+fhVqhSob6ZnGX-kEw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Jaime Casanova <jaime(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 9:18 PM, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> --On 15. Januar 2012 02:50:00 -0500 Jaime Casanova <jaime(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Attached is a patch thats implements a pg_stat_recovery view that
>>>>> keeps counters about processed wal records. I just notice that it
>>>>> still lacks documentation but i will add it during the week.
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>> Before reviewing the patch, I'd like to know: what's the purpose of this view?
>> It's only debug purpose? ISTM that most users don't care about this view at all.
>>
>
> yeah! you're right. most users won't care about it... did i tell that
> i added a track_recovery GUC so only users that wanted pay for it? i
> probably did not tell that :D
If only core developer is interested in this view, ISTM that short
description for
each WAL record is not required because he or she can know the meaning of each
WAL record by reading the source code. No? Adding short descriptions for every
WAL records seems to be overkill.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2012-02-02 08:24:55 | Re: pg_stats_recovery view |
Previous Message | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI | 2012-02-02 07:51:37 | Re: Speed dblink using alternate libpq tuple storage |