From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_stat_replication vs StandbyReplyMessage |
Date: | 2011-08-16 12:54:45 |
Message-ID: | CA+U5nM+q6PnBLJxG4MAYB0476qF4WfyCe+jMUa_AkScimKQDfg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 10:51 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 13:50, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 7:03 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
>>> The pg_stat_replication view exposes all the fields in
>>> StandbyReplyMessage *except* for the timestamp when the message was
>>> generated. On an active system this is not all that interesting, but
>>> on a mostly idle system that allows the monitoring to react faster
>>> than the timeout that actually kicks the other end off - and could be
>>> useful in manual debugging scenarios. Any particular reason why this
>>> was not exposed as it's own column?
>>
>> I wondered the same thing. Sounds like a good idea.
>
> I can go do that. Care to argue^Wbikeshed for a specific name?
reply_timestamp
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2011-08-16 12:58:19 | Re: walprotocol.h vs frontends |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2011-08-16 12:51:51 | Re: Backup's from standby |