Hello, thank t for response, measure in bytes may bemore correct, but to
bring it to the customer? :) I think it is easier to say that the
standby database lags behind master no more than 15 minutes, than the
fact that it differs for 1 megabyte.
ps: sorry for my English
On 06/15/2015 02:57 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Isn't your mistake the fact that you rely on the assumption that
> replication lag measured in terms of timestamp is a good thing while
> it should be estimated in terms of byte difference by comparing WAL
> positions between the master and its standbys?
