From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: checkpoints are duplicated even while the system is idle |
Date: | 2011-10-06 18:05:16 |
Message-ID: | CA+U5nMJ2gnW8KG4rDfTT4E+vqr20Oddv1v-J_oJbgCQTi6GfAg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 6:56 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> Do we want this backpatched? If so, suggest just 9.1 and 9.0?
>
> -1 for backpatching; it's more an improvement than a bug fix.
OK, works for me.
> In any case, I think we still need to respond to the point Kevin made
> about how to tell an idle master from broken replication. Right now,
> you will get at least a few bytes of data every checkpoint_timeout
> seconds. If we change this, you won't.
> I'm inclined to think that the way to deal with that is not to force out
> useless WAL data, but to add some sort of explicit "I'm alive" heartbeat
> signal to the walsender/walreceiver protocol. The hard part of that is
> to figure out how to expose it where you can see it on the slave side
> --- or do we have a status view that could handle that?
Different but related issue and yes, am on it, and yes, the way you just said.
I foresee a function that tells you the delay based on a protocol
message of 'k' for keepalive.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2011-10-06 18:08:20 | Re: checkpoints are duplicated even while the system is idle |
Previous Message | Alex Goncharov | 2011-10-06 18:02:14 | libpq, PQdescribePrepared -> PQftype, PQfmod, no PQnullable |