Hello hackers,
Still need to solve this topic?
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CABUevEwA%3DAFWXr-7cCpZ9MDdxHL2wFGsxFiB6uyFDTOhRudGrA%40mail.gmail.com
I saw this topic in todo list,
so I implemented simple patch.
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/1657809367.407321.1533027417725.JavaMail.jboss%40ep2ml404
If it was not necessary, please let me know.
Feedback and suggestion will be very welcome.
Thanks!
Best regards,
Myungkyu, Lim
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_stat_replication vs StandbyReplyMessage
Date: 2012-08-25 20:46:51
Message-ID: 20120825204651.GC10814@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 12:40:33PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 5:39 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 01:03:35PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> >> The pg_stat_replication view exposes all the fields in
> >> StandbyReplyMessage *except* for the timestamp when the message was
> >> generated. On an active system this is not all that interesting, but
> >> on a mostly idle system that allows the monitoring to react faster
> >> than the timeout that actually kicks the other end off - and could be
> >> useful in manual debugging scenarios. Any particular reason why this
> >> was not exposed as it's own column?
> >
> > Did this ever get done? I don't think so, though everyone wanted it.
>
> Nope, it wasn't done. Should probably do that for 9.3 (since adding a
> field to pg_stat_replication will cause initdb, so we can't really do
> it for 9.2 unless it was really critical - and it's not).
OK, TODO added:
Add entry creation timestamp column to pg_stat_replication
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-08/msg00694.php
--
