| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | "myungkyu(dot)lim" <myungkyu(dot)lim(at)samsung(dot)com> |
| Cc: | 'Masahiko Sawada' <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, 'PostgreSQL-development' <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, woosung(dot)sohn(at)samsung(dot)com, don(dot)hong(at)samsung(dot)com |
| Subject: | Re: [Todo item] Add entry creation timestamp column to pg_stat_replication |
| Date: | 2018-11-15 08:27:48 |
| Message-ID: | 20181115082748.GG1374@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 05:02:31PM +0900, myungkyu.lim wrote:
>> I got confused by the field name. If we have 'last_msg_send_time'
>> field in pg_stat_replciation which has information of wal senders
>> users would think it as a time when the wal sender sent a message last
>> time. However values of the fields actually shows a time when the wal
>> receiver sent a reply message last time. So perhaps
>> 'last_reply_send_time' would be more clear.
>
> Good point. 'last_reply_send_time' is better.
> How about just 'reply_time'?
Please note that the original thread has mentioned reply_timestamp as a
consensus:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA%2BTgmoZ39FvwbVQGAusNx_Mv%3DyqOr_UFuFnMorNYNvxPaxkOeA%40mail.gmail.com
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2018-11-15 08:33:26 | Re: [Todo item] Add entry creation timestamp column to pg_stat_replication |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2018-11-15 08:14:33 | Re: Libpq support to connect to standby server as priority |