Prev: [HACKERS] Bug / shortcoming in has_*_privilege
Next: Bug / shortcoming in has_*_privilege
From: Bruce Momjian on 10 Jun 2010 18:23
Takahiro Itagaki wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We have codes to change ps display for recovery process during hot standby.
> The current code always shows max_standby_delay for the message, but how
> about showing actual waiting time instead? Since DBAs can always get the
> parameter from postgresql.conf they wrote, so the parameter value itself
> is not so useful. Actual waiting time might be more useful to determine
> which values to be set to max_standby_delay, no?
>
> [backend/storage/ipc/standby.c]
> snprintf(new_status + len, 50,
> " waiting for max_standby_delay (%d ms)",
> MaxStandbyDelay); ==> GetCurrentTimestamp() - waitStart
> set_ps_display(new_status, false);
>
> I think SQL-based activity view will be more useful than ps display,
> but it's an item for 9.1.

Sounds interesting, but how often would the ps statust display be
updated? I hope not too often.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(a)momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ None of us is going to be here forever. +

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

From: Takahiro Itagaki on 10 Jun 2010 22:20

Bruce Momjian <bruce(a)momjian.us> wrote:

> > how about showing actual waiting time instead?
> > " waiting for max_standby_delay (%d ms)",
> > MaxStandbyDelay)
>
> Sounds interesting, but how often would the ps statust display be
> updated? I hope not too often.

We can change the interval of updates to 500ms or so if do it,
but I rethink ps display is not the best place for the information.

I'd like to modify the additonal message "waiting for max_standby_delay"
just to "waiting", because we don't use "waiting for statement_timeout"
for normal queries.

If we need additional information about conflictions in recovery,
we would supply them with SQL views instead of ps display in 9.1.

Regards,
---
Takahiro Itagaki
NTT Open Source Software Center



--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

From: Fujii Masao on 10 Jun 2010 22:40
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 11:20 AM, Takahiro Itagaki
<itagaki.takahiro(a)oss.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
>
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(a)momjian.us> wrote:
>
>> > how about showing actual waiting time instead?
>> > � � � � � � �" waiting for max_standby_delay (%d ms)",
>> > � � � � � � �MaxStandbyDelay)
>>
>> Sounds interesting, but how often would the ps statust display be
>> updated? �I hope not too often.
>
> We can change the interval of updates to 500ms or so if do it,
> but I rethink ps display is not the best place for the information.
>
> I'd like to modify the additonal message "waiting for max_standby_delay"
> just to "waiting", because we don't use "waiting for statement_timeout"
> for normal queries.

+1

I don't think that it's useful to display the value of max_standby_delay.

> If we need additional information about conflictions in recovery,
> we would supply them with SQL views instead of ps display in 9.1.

+1

Regards,

--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: [HACKERS] Bug / shortcoming in has_*_privilege
Next: Bug / shortcoming in has_*_privilege