| From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, 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 23:51:12 |
| Message-ID: | 1273017072.26743.36.camel@jd-desktop.unknown.charter.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 2010-05-04 at 16:34 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> 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.
+1
Joshua D. Drake
--
PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor
Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 503.667.4564
Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Smith | 2010-05-05 00:21:02 | Re: max_standby_delay considered harmful |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2010-05-04 23:42:15 | LogStandbySnapshot (was another thread) |