On Wed, 2010-10-06 at 10:57 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > (2), (3) Degradation: (Jeff) these two cases make sense only if we > give > DBAs the tools they need to monitor which standbys are falling behind, > and to drop and replace those standbys. Otherwise we risk giving DBAs > false confidence that they have better-than-1-standby reliability when > actually they don't. Current tools are not really adequate for this.
Current tools work just fine for identifying if a server is falling behind. This improved in 9.0 to give fine-grained information. Nothing more is needed here within the server. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
