Re: system views for walsender activity
От | Magnus Hagander |
---|---|
Тема | Re: system views for walsender activity |
Дата | |
Msg-id | AANLkTi=hb+WKBiytnNxv_EqmMUGDdCEAoJ7nk4YXjj6U@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: system views for walsender activity (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: system views for walsender activity
Re: system views for walsender activity |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 02:24, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 10:41 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >>> >>> I think we need a status enum. ('BACKUP', 'CATCHUP', 'STREAM') for the 3 >>> >>> phases of replication. >>> >> >>> >> That seems reasonable. But if we keep BACKUP in there, should we >>> >> really have it called pg_stat_replication? (yeah, I know, I'm not >>> >> giving up :P) >>> >> >>> >> (You'd need a 4th mode for WAITING or so, to indicate it's waiting for >>> >> a command) >>> > >>> > That's something different. >>> > >>> > The 3 phases are more concrete. >>> > >>> > BACKUP --> CATCHUP<---> STREAM >>> > >>> > When you connect you either do BACKUP or CATCHUP. Once in CATCHUP mode >>> > you never issue a BACKUP. Once we have caught up we move to STREAM. That >>> > has nothing to do with idle/active. >>> >>> So how does a walsender that's waiting for a command from the client >>> show up? Surely it's not in "catchup" mode yet? >> >> There is a trivial state between connect and first command. If you think >> that is worth publishing, feel free. STARTING? > > I think it's worth publishing. STARTING would be OK, or maybe STARTUP > to parallel the other two -UP states. Here's a patch for this. I chose IDLE, because that's what we call other backends that are waiting for commands... Does this seem correct? -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: