On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 6:56 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >> Do we want this backpatched? If so, suggest just 9.1 and 9.0? > > -1 for backpatching; it's more an improvement than a bug fix.
OK, works for me. > In any case, I think we still need to respond to the point Kevin made > about how to tell an idle master from broken replication. Right now, > you will get at least a few bytes of data every checkpoint_timeout > seconds. If we change this, you won't. > I'm inclined to think that the way to deal with that is not to force out > useless WAL data, but to add some sort of explicit "I'm alive" heartbeat > signal to the walsender/walreceiver protocol. The hard part of that is > to figure out how to expose it where you can see it on the slave side > --- or do we have a status view that could handle that? Different but related issue and yes, am on it, and yes, the way you just said. I foresee a function that tells you the delay based on a protocol message of 'k' for keepalive. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
