> On 16-Oct-2013, at 3:45 pm, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > >> On 2013-10-16 11:03:12 +0530, Pavan Deolasee wrote: >> I think you are right. Someone who understands the replication code very >> well advised us to use that log message as a way to measure how much time >> it takes to send all the missing WAL to a remote standby on a slow WAN >> link. While it worked well for all measurements, when we use a middleware >> which caches a lot of traffic on the sender side, this log message was very >> counter intuitive. It took several more minutes for the standby to actually >> receive all the WAL files and catch up after the message was displayed on >> the master side. But then as you said, may be relying on the message was >> not the best way to measure the time. > > Query pg_stat_replication instead, that has the flush position. >
Yeah, that's what we are doing now. Thanks, Pavan > Greetings, > > Andres Freund > > -- > Andres Freund 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
