maria-developers team mailing list archive
Mailing list archive
Re: On the issue of Seconds_behind_master and Parallel Replication
Is it possible to know how many transactions/operations slave is behind the
Assume in above that master is idle for several days, if master then
executes a one
transaction, does that mean that slave is behind the master also several
On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 9:12 AM, Kristian Nielsen <knielsen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Kristian Nielsen <knielsen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > - Should Seconds_Behind_Master be changed as per above in parallel
> > replication (from 10.0 on)?
> > - If so, should the change to Seconds_Behind_Master also be done in the
> > non-parallel case in 10.1? What about 10.0?
> So there seems to be agreement that Seconds_Behind_Master should be changed
> in 10.1 to only update on commit (also in non-parallel case). This does
> a better behaviour.
> One consequence of this is the following: Suppose the master is idle for 1
> hour. The Seconds_Behind_Master is reported as 0 on a slave that is up to
> date. Suppose now the master executes a transaction. While that new
> transaction is being applied, the Seconds_Behind_Master will be reported as
> 3600 (one hour), then go back to zero.
> This is arguably the correct value - the slave is indeed in the state of
> master one hour ago while executing that transaction. But I still wonder if
> this will not just cause another kind of confusion with users (or existing
> monitoring tools), as they will interpret it as the slave being far behind
> the master. While in reality it is only one transaction behind.
> - Kristian.
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~maria-developers
> Post to : maria-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~maria-developers
> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp