On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 16:41, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On Mon, 2011-01-10 at 17:05 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: >> On 10.01.2011 16:49, Simon Riggs wrote: >> > On Mon, 2011-01-10 at 15:20 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: >> >> On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 15:53, Simon Riggs<si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 2011-01-09 at 12:52 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> One thing I noticed is that it gives an interesting property to my >> >>>> patch for streaming base backups - they now show up in >> >>>> pg_stat_replication, with a streaming location of 0/0. >> >>>> >> >>>> If the view is named pg_stat_replication, we probably want to filter >> >>>> that out somehow. But then, do we want a separate view listing the >> >>>> walsenders that are busy sending base backups? >> >>>> >> >>>> For that matter, do we want an indication that separates a walsender >> >>>> not sending data from one sending that happens to be at location 0/0? >> >>>> Most will leave 0/0 really quickly, but a walsender can be idle (not >> >>>> received a command yet), or it can be running IDENTIFY_SYSTEM for >> >>>> example. >> >>> >> >>> I think we need a status enum. ('BACKUP', 'CATCHUP', 'STREAM') for the 3 >> >>> phases of replication. >> >> >> >> That seems reasonable. But if we keep BACKUP in there, should we >> >> really have it called pg_stat_replication? (yeah, I know, I'm not >> >> giving up :P) >> >> >> >> (You'd need a 4th mode for WAITING or so, to indicate it's waiting for >> >> a command) >> > >> > That's something different. >> > >> > The 3 phases are more concrete. >> > >> > BACKUP --> CATCHUP<---> STREAM >> > >> > When you connect you either do BACKUP or CATCHUP. Once in CATCHUP mode >> > you never issue a BACKUP. Once we have caught up we move to STREAM. That >> > has nothing to do with idle/active. >> >> So how does a walsender that's waiting for a command from the client >> show up? Surely it's not in "catchup" mode yet? > > There is a trivial state between connect and first command. If you think > that is worth publishing, feel free. STARTING?
If we don't publish it, it'll implicitly be in one of the others.. Unless we say NULL, of course, but I definitely prefer STARTING then. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers