Re: Proposal: Commit timestamp

Jan Wieck wrote:
> This is all that is needed for last update wins resolution. And as
> said before, the only reason the clock is involved in this is so that
> nodes can continue autonomously when they lose connection without
> conflict resolution going crazy later on, which it would do if they
> were simple counters. It doesn't require microsecond synchronized
> clocks and the system clock isn't just used as a Lamport timestamp.

Earlier you said that "one assumption is that all servers in the
multimaster cluster are ntp synchronized", which already rung the alarm
bells in me. Now that I read this you appear to require
synchronization not on the microsecond level but on some level. I
think that would be pretty hard to manage for an administrator, seeing
that NTP typically cannot provide such guarantees.

--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/