From: | Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: system views for walsender activity |
Date: | 2011-01-05 01:32:04 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTikpw_ksd5vpd2S_O7rH4sjWiCRPe26eyLki4Me5@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 04:56, Heikki Linnakangas
<heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>> I think pg_stat_replication is better than pg_stat_standby, but I'm
>> still not convinced we shouldn't go with the obvious
>> pg_stat_walsenders.
>
> How about pg_stat_replication_activity? If I understood correctly, the view
> is similar to pg_stat_activity, but displays information about connected
> standbys rather than regular backends. It's a bit long name, though.
The view currently discussed is for *master* servers. We might have some
views for replication activity in *standby* servers. So, I'd like to
choose consistent and symmetric names for them -- for example,
pg_stat_replication_master and pg_stat_replication_standby.
I've expected they will be pg_stat_wal_[senders|receivers]
when I was writing the patch, but any other better names welcome.
However, we have "max_wal_senders" GUC parameter. So, users still
need to know what "wal_senders" is.
--
Itagaki Takahiro
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jeff Janes | 2011-01-05 01:40:55 | Re: can shared cache be swapped to disk? |
Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2011-01-05 00:45:54 | Re: WIP: Range Types |