Re: Streaming replication status - Mailing list pgsql-hackers
From | Simon Riggs |
---|---|
Subject | Re: Streaming replication status |
Date | |
Msg-id | 1263329342.19367.179665.camel@ebony Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: Streaming replication status (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>) |
Responses |
Re: Streaming replication status
|
List | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 2010-01-12 at 15:11 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote: > > Simon Riggs wrote: > > > On Tue, 2010-01-12 at 08:24 +0100, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote: > > >> Fujii Masao wrote: > > >>> On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 1:21 PM, Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > >>>> I don't think anybody can deploy this feature without at least some very > > >>>> basic monitoring here. I like the basic proposal you made back in September > > >>>> for adding a pg_standbys_xlog_location to replace what you have to get from > > >>>> ps right now: > > >>>> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-09/msg00889.php > > >>>> > > >>>> That's basic, but enough that people could get by for a V1. > > >>> Yeah, I have no objection to add such simple capability which monitors > > >>> the lag into the first release. But I guess that, in addition to that, > > >>> Simon wanted the capability to collect the statistical information about > > >>> replication activity (e.g., a transfer time, a write time, replay time). > > >>> So I'd like to postpone it. > > >> yeah getting that would all be nice and handy but we have to remember > > >> that this is really our first cut at integrated replication. Being able > > >> to monitor lag is what is needed as a minimum, more advanced stuff can > > >> and will emerge once we get some actual feedback from the field. > > > > > > Though there won't be any feedback from the field because there won't be > > > any numbers to discuss. Just "it appears to be working". Then we will go > > > into production and the problems will begin to be reported. We will be > > > able to do nothing to resolve them because we won't know how many people > > > are affected. > > > > field is also production usage in my pov, and I'm not sure how we would > > know how many people are affected by some imaginary issue just because > > there is a column that has some numbers in it. > > All of the large features we added in the past got finetuned and > > improved in the following releases, and I expect SR to be one of them > > that will see a lot of improvement in 8.5+n. > > Adding detailed monitoring of some random stuff (I don't think there was > > a clear proposal of what kind of stuff you would like to see) while we > > don't really know what the performance characteristics are might easily > > lead to us provding a ton of data and nothing relevant :( > > What I really think we should do for this first cut is to make it as > > foolproof and easy to set up as possible and add the minimum required > > monitoring knobs but not going overboard with doing too many stats. > > I totally agree. If SR isn't going to be useful without being > feature-complete, we might as well just drop it for 8.5 right now. > > Let's get a reasonable feature set implemented and then come back in 8.6 > to improve it. For example, there is no need for a special > 'replication' user (just use super-user), and monitoring should be > minimal until we have field experience of exactly what monitoring we > need. > > The final commit-fest is in 5 days --- this is not the time for design > discussion and feature additions. If we wait for SR to be feature > complete, with design discussions, etc, we will hopelessly delay 8.5 and > people will get frustrated. I am not saying we can't talk about design, > but none of this should be a requirement for 8.5. We can't add monitoring until we know what the performance characteristics are. Hmmm. And how will we know what the performance characteristics are, I wonder? Anyway, I'll leave it to you now. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
pgsql-hackers by date: