Re: system views for walsender activity

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: system views for walsender activity
Date: 2011-01-07 13:33:58
Message-ID: AANLkTiknc5w8tvmSdHVdKdUGq=KTRWAissjxNtvQRD33@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 8:09 AM, Itagaki Takahiro
<itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 21:48, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
>>>  * pg_stat_replication
>>>  * pg_stat_standby (not yet)
>>
>> Just to keep the bikeshedding up, should it in this case not be
>> pg_stat_replication_master and pg_stat_replication_standby or such?
>> Replication applies to both master and slave...
>
> The reason I didn't use term "master" is that pg_stat_replication is
> information of *standby* servers on master server. Of course,
> wal senders are processes in the master, but users probably think
> they are the location standby servers receives.

To my way of thinking, pg_stat_walsender and pg_stat_walreceiver would
be more clear than pg_stat_replication_master and
pg_stat_replication_slave.

However, my way of thinking is of course not the only way of thinking.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Zotov 2011-01-07 13:34:28 Re: join functions
Previous Message Robert Haas 2011-01-07 13:16:33 LOCK for non-tables