Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Proposal: Commit timestamp

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)yahoo(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Theo Schlossnagle <jesus(at)omniti(dot)com>, Jim Nasby <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Proposal: Commit timestamp
Date: 2007-02-04 08:16:42
Message-ID: 200702040916.44380.peter_e@gmx.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
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/

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2007-02-04 09:25:18
Subject: Re: Remove log segment and log_id fields from pg_controldata
Previous:From: Jan WieckDate: 2007-02-04 06:01:44
Subject: Re: Referential Integrity and SHARE locks

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group