Re: max_standby_delay considered harmful

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: 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 00:31:07
Message-ID: 24335.1273019467@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Josh Berkus 2010-05-05 00:48:31 Re: max_standby_delay considered harmful
Previous Message Greg Smith 2010-05-05 00:21:02 Re: max_standby_delay considered harmful