Simon Riggs wrote: > On Sat, 2010-05-15 at 11:45 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> I'm also extremely dubious that it's a good idea to set >> recoveryLastXTime from this. Using both that and the timestamps from >> the wal log flies in the face of everything I remember about control >> theory. We should be doing only one or only the other, I think. > > I can change it so that the recoveryLastXTime will not be updated if we > are using the value from the keepalives. So we have one, or the other. > Remember that replication can switch backwards and forwards between > modes, so it seems sensible to have a common timing value whichever mode > we're in.
That means that recoveryLastXTime can jump forwards and backwards. Doesn't feel right to me either. If you want to expose the keepalive-time to queries, it should be a separate field, something like lastMasterKeepaliveTime and a pg_last_master_keepalive() function to read it. -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
