On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 02:32, Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki.takah...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 04:56, Heikki Linnakangas > <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: >>> I think pg_stat_replication is better than pg_stat_standby, but I'm >>> still not convinced we shouldn't go with the obvious >>> pg_stat_walsenders. >> >> How about pg_stat_replication_activity? If I understood correctly, the view >> is similar to pg_stat_activity, but displays information about connected >> standbys rather than regular backends. It's a bit long name, though. > > The view currently discussed is for *master* servers. We might have some > views for replication activity in *standby* servers. So, I'd like to > choose consistent and symmetric names for them -- for example, > pg_stat_replication_master and pg_stat_replication_standby. > I've expected they will be pg_stat_wal_[senders|receivers] > when I was writing the patch, but any other better names welcome. > > However, we have "max_wal_senders" GUC parameter. So, users still > need to know what "wal_senders" is.
An example to compare with could be pg_stat_bgwriter - that's also one the really expects you to know some internals. Now, it so happens that it's a very *bad* example, since it contains a bunch of information that's *not* actually about the bgwriter these days :-) But from that perspective, is it likely to ever contain anyting *other* than walsender information? Given that it's keyed by the process id of a walsender, I don't expect it would. Whereas a pg_stat_replication or such could equally be expected to contain information about other ways of replication - like the file based modes or even slony. +1 for pg_stat_walsender or pg_stat_walsender_activity -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
