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

Re: time-delayed standbys

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: time-delayed standbys
Date: 2011-06-30 17:38:06
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 6/30/11 10:25 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> So I think keeping it defined it terms of time is the
> right way forward, even though the need for external time
> synchronization is, certainly, not ideal.

Actually, when we last had the argument about time synchronization,
Kevin Grittner (I believe) pointed out that unsynchronized replication
servers have an assortment of other issues ... like any read query
involving now().  As the person who originally brought up this hurdle, I
felt that his argument defeated mine.

Certainly I can't see any logical way to have time delay in the absence
of clock synchronization of some kind.  Also, I kinda feel like this
discussion seems aimed at overcomplicating a feature which only a small
fraction of our users will ever use.    Let's keep it as simple as possible.

As for delay on streaming replication, I'm for it.  I think that
post-9.1, thanks to pgbasebackup, the number of our users who are doing
archive log shipping is going to drop tremendously.

Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Kevin GrittnerDate: 2011-06-30 17:51:25
Subject: Re: time-delayed standbys
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2011-06-30 17:25:13
Subject: Re: time-delayed standbys

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group