On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 12:42, Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki.takah...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 19:20, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >>> "pg_stat_replication" seems to be the most understandable name. >> >> Please go with whatever you think best for now. I'm sure people will ask >> for different names later anyway. Let's get this committed soon, to >> reduce later patch conflicts. Thanks. >> >> Please add sent_location, I will add others. > > OK, I added a view named s "pg_stat_replication". The view is basically > based on Simon's patch, but I just skipped unused WalSnd entreis in > WalSndCtl rather than return NULLs. The applied patch attached. > > I expect we will have two views for master and standby servers: > > * pg_stat_replication > Activity of wal senders in master server. > * pg_stat_standby (not yet) > Activity of a wal receiver and a recovery process in standby servers.
Just to keep the bikeshedding up, should it in this case not be pg_stat_replication_master and pg_stat_replication_standby or such? Replication applies to both master and slave... > I didn't use pg_stat_wal_sender/receiver as their names because standby > activity in slaves could contain not only a wal receiver but also a > recovery process. Good point. -- 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
