On Tuesday 12 January 2010 17:37:11 Simon Riggs wrote:
> There is not much sense being talked here. I have asked for sufficient
> monitoring to allow us to manage it in production, which is IMHO the
> minimum required to make it shippable. This is a point I have mentioned
> over the course of many months, not a sudden additional thought.
>
Even subscribing to this view point, there is sure to be a significant wiggle
room in what people find to be "sufficient monitoring". If I had to score the
monitoring facilities we have for PITR standby, I'd give it about a crap out
of 5, and yet somehow we seem to manage it.
> If the majority thinks that being able to find out the current replay
> point of recovery is all we need to manage replication then I will
> happily defer to that view, without changing my opinion that we need
> more. It should be clear that we didn't even have that before I raised
> the point.
>
I'm certainly interested in specifics of what you think need to be exposed for
monitoring, and I'd be interested in whether those things can be exposed as
either trace points or possibly as C functions. My guess is that we won't get
them into core for 8.5, but that we might be able to provide some additional
facilities after the fact as we get more of these systems deployed.
--
Robert Treat
Conjecture: http://www.xzilla.net
Consulting: http://www.omniti.com
