| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Streaming replication status |
| Date: | 2010-01-10 17:40:54 |
| Message-ID: | 1263145254.19367.143332.camel@ebony |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, 2010-01-10 at 18:40 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > We
> > don't have any way of monitoring that, as yet. Setting ps display is not
> > enough here.
>
> Yeah, monitoring would be nice too. But what I was wondering is whether
> we need some way of stopping that from filling the disk in master.
> (Fujii-san's suggestion of a GUC to set the max. amount of WAL to keep
> in the master for standbys feels good to me).
OK, now I got you. I thought that was already agreed; guess it is now.
We need monitoring anywhere we have a max_* parameter. Otherwise we
won't know how close we are to disaster until we hit the limit and
things break down. Otherwise we will have to set parameters by trial and
error, or set them so high they are meaningless.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2010-01-10 17:53:35 | Re: damage control mode |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-01-10 16:53:30 | Re: [PATCH] Windows x64 [repost] |