Simon Riggs wrote: > On Sat, 2010-05-15 at 19:30 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: >> 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. > > That wouldn't be good because then you couldn't easily monitor the > delay? You'd have to run two different functions depending on the state > of replication (for which we would need yet another function). Users > would just wrap that back up into a single function.
What exactly is the user trying to monitor? If it's "how far behind is the standby", the difference between pg_current_xlog_insert_location() in the master and pg_last_xlog_replay_location() in the standby seems more robust and well-defined to me. It's a measure of XLOG location (ie. bytes) instead of time, but time is a complicated concept. Also note that as the patch stands, if you receive a keep-alive from the master at point X, it doesn't mean that the standby is fully up-to-date. It's possible that the walsender just finished sending a huge batch of accumulated WAL, say 1 GB, and it took 1 hour for the batch to be sent. During that time, a lot more WAL has accumulated, yet walsender sends a keep-alive with the current timestamp. In general, the purpose of a keep-alive is to keep the connection alive, but you're trying to accomplish something else too, and I don't fully understand what it is. -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers