| From: | Sam Nelson <samn(at)consistentstate(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Hot Standby Lag Calculation |
| Date: | 2011-08-03 17:03:15 |
| Message-ID: | CAD+BJxJdxdnjrArO_r-9cRcNT5c-fHJzEgVhxTBFWW4RZaX-mw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Hi, List,
We're trying to calculate the amount of time that a Hot Standby slave is
lagging behind its master, and our results look wrong (average of 7 seconds,
with some over 1 minute), so we were thinking that we're probably
calculating it wrong.
We're currently just using the timestamps from ls (mtimes, I believe?)
against the files in the pg_xlog directory and comparing the timestamp of
the files on the master to the same files on the slave. Is this incorrect?
If so, what's the standard way of calculating the lag of a hot standby?
---
===========================
Samuel Nelson
Consistent State
www.consistentstate.com
303-955-0509
===========================
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jerry Sievers | 2011-08-03 17:03:54 | Re: Vacuum as "easily obtained" locks |
| Previous Message | Pavan Deolasee | 2011-08-03 16:33:49 | Re: [GENERAL] Odd VACUUM behavior when it is expected to truncate last empty pages |