On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Dave Cramer <davecramer at gmail.com> wrote:

> Not sure I was clear enough. The goal is to find out what the
> read/write/tx profile of the application is as if slony wasn't there.
>

OK, that's a useful clarification.

That makes things a bit harder, as Slony does a fair bit of activity (e.g.
- queries to manage events, queries to determine what data to replicate,
 cleanup of old data) that would also need to be accounted for.

I'm not quite sure how to account for that load.


> If your intent was to suggest that if we aggregated slony stats so that we
> could subsequently use them to get the net statistics then yes, this would
> work
>

Cool, sounds like it's a broadly helpful thing that should be helpful for
your case, and, I'd hope, others.

BTW, Jan has had some thoughts about trying to run the cleanup more often
on the basis that if the cleanup frequency is higher than the Postgres
checkpoint frequency, we might be able to avoid pushing sl_log_* to disk,
which would mean that the cost of replication turns out to be lower than
people were thinking.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.slony.info/pipermail/slony1-general/attachments/20140716/7ef88fb7/attachment.htm