On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 1:28 AM, Thomas Munro <thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 10:14 AM, Thomas Munro > <thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 2:14 AM, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> I agree that the capability to measure the remote_apply lag is very useful. >>> Also I want to measure the remote_write and remote_flush lags, for example, >>> in order to diagnose the cause of replication lag. >> >> Good idea. I will think about how to make that work. > > Here is an experimental version that reports the write, flush and > apply lag separately as requested. This is done with three separate > (lsn, timestamp) buffers on the standby side. The GUC is now called > replication_lag_sample_interval. Not tested much yet.
Here is a new version that is slightly refactored and fixes a problem with stale samples after periods of idleness. -- Thomas Munro http://www.enterprisedb.com
replay-lag-v16.patch
Description: Binary data
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
