Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> Do we want this backpatched? If so, suggest just 9.1 and 9.0?
-1 for backpatching; it's more an improvement than a bug fix.
In any case, I think we still need to respond to the point Kevin made
about how to tell an idle master from broken replication. Right now,
you will get at least a few bytes of data every checkpoint_timeout
seconds. If we change this, you won't.
I'm inclined to think that the way to deal with that is not to force out
useless WAL data, but to add some sort of explicit "I'm alive" heartbeat
signal to the walsender/walreceiver protocol. The hard part of that is
to figure out how to expose it where you can see it on the slave side
--- or do we have a status view that could handle that?
regards, tom lane
