| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: max_standby_delay considered harmful |
| Date: | 2010-05-04 23:34:07 |
| Message-ID: | 4BE0AEEF.4070304@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 5/4/10 4:26 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
>
> Not the database's problem to worry about. Document that time should be
> carefully sync'd and move on. I'll add that.
Releasing a hot standby which *only* works for users with an operational
ntp implementation is highly unrealistic. Having built-in replication
in PostgreSQL was supposed to give the *majority* of users a *simple*
option for 2-server failover, not cater only to the high end. Every
administrative requirement we add to HS/SR eliminates another set of
potential users, as well as adding another set of potential failure
conditions which need to be monitored.
--
-- Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://www.pgexperts.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2010-05-04 23:40:22 | Need to contact driver authors about change in index naming behavior ... |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-05-04 23:33:56 | Re: max_standby_delay considered harmful |