| From: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Measuring replay lag |
| Date: | 2017-02-23 06:24:34 |
| Message-ID: | CAEepm=2U7TQ4V73opfikZ+4+L=L47N0y1gqPhQZnR6mm44sYxg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 11:52 AM, Thomas Munro
<thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> The overall graph looks pretty similar, but it is more likely to short
> hiccups caused by occasional slow WAL fsyncs in walreceiver. See the
I meant to write "more likely to *miss* short hiccups".
--
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Langote | 2017-02-23 06:32:02 | Re: dropping partitioned tables without CASCADE |
| Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2017-02-23 06:22:38 | Re: Measuring replay lag |