Re: [HACKERS] Measuring replay lag - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Simon Riggs
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Measuring replay lag
Date
Msg-id CANP8+j+3U-bHHZsS2gp1zFtGA7rzf4=ieErbsE2LYECfZx5F7w@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Measuring replay lag  (Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Measuring replay lag  (Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 3 January 2017 at 23:22, Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com> wrote:

>> I don't see why that would be unacceptable. If we do it for
>> remote_apply, why not also do it for other modes? Whatever the
>> reasoning was for remote_apply should work for other modes. I should
>> add it was originally designed to be that way by me, so must have been
>> changed later.
>
> You can achieve that with this patch by setting
> replication_lag_sample_interval to 0.

I wonder why you ignore my mention of the bug in the correct mechanism?

-- 
Simon Riggs                http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal
Next
From: Amit Langote
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Declarative partitioning - another take