| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: max_standby_delay considered harmful |
| Date: | 2010-05-05 03:06:32 |
| Message-ID: | 201005050306.o4536WH17128@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > Anyway, I have no idea where the idea that recommending time
> > synchronization is a somehow a "high end" requirement,
>
> Considering that clock skew was only one of several scenarios in which
> the max_standby_delay code misbehaves, it's not that important whether
> you consider it highly probable or not. The code still needs a
> redesign, and we may as well eliminate the assumption of tight
> synchronization while we are at it. There's no really good reason to
> have that requirement in there.
Should I be concerned that we are redesigning HS features at this stage
in the release?
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-05-05 03:38:05 | Re: max_standby_delay considered harmful |
| Previous Message | David Fetter | 2010-05-05 02:01:29 | Re: Need to contact driver authors about change in index naming behavior ... |