On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 1:56 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. > > 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?
As of 9.1, we already have something very much like this, in the opposite direction. See wal_receiver_status_interval and replication_timeout. I bet we could adapt that slightly to work in the other direction, too. But that'll only work with streaming replication - do we care about the WAL shipping case? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
