Hello hackers, Still need to solve this topic?
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CABUevEwA%3DAFWXr-7cCpZ9MDdxHL2wFGsxFiB6uyFDTOhRudGrA%40mail.gmail.com I saw this topic in todo list, so I implemented simple patch. https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/1657809367.407321.1533027417725.JavaMail.jboss%40ep2ml404 If it was not necessary, please let me know. Feedback and suggestion will be very welcome. Thanks! Best regards, Myungkyu, Lim ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> To: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> Subject: Re: pg_stat_replication vs StandbyReplyMessage Date: 2012-08-25 20:46:51 Message-ID: 20120825204651.gc10...@momjian.us Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox Lists: pgsql-hackers On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 12:40:33PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 5:39 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> > wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 01:03:35PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: > >> The pg_stat_replication view exposes all the fields in > >> StandbyReplyMessage *except* for the timestamp when the message was > >> generated. On an active system this is not all that interesting, but > >> on a mostly idle system that allows the monitoring to react faster > >> than the timeout that actually kicks the other end off - and could be > >> useful in manual debugging scenarios. Any particular reason why this > >> was not exposed as it's own column? > > > > Did this ever get done? I don't think so, though everyone wanted it. > > Nope, it wasn't done. Should probably do that for 9.3 (since adding a > field to pg_stat_replication will cause initdb, so we can't really do > it for 9.2 unless it was really critical - and it's not). OK, TODO added: Add entry creation timestamp column to pg_stat_replication http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-08/msg00694.php --
