| From: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Small bug in replication lag tracking |
| Date: | 2017-06-23 23:32:33 |
| Message-ID: | CAEepm=1uQ3VSNO2LdZJxeCjS5Sez_2M=SX0DDr3wAogX2oTCxQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 6:07 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 23 June 2017 at 08:18, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> On 23 June 2017 at 06:45, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>>> I discovered a thinko in the new replication lag interpolation code
>>> that can cause a strange number to be reported occasionally.
>>
>> Thanks, will review.
>
> I've pushed this, but I think we should leave the code alone after
> this and wait for user feedback.
Thanks! Yeah, I haven't heard any feedback about this, which I've
been interpreting as good news... but if anyone's looking for
something to beta test, reports would be most welcome.
--
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2017-06-23 23:36:25 | Re: Logical replication: stuck spinlock at ReplicationSlotRelease |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-06-23 23:14:13 | Re: Can ICU be used for a database's default sort order? |