| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Keepalive for max_standby_delay |
| Date: | 2010-06-02 18:35:10 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTimn-Q3QFejMk7px6x3PPvec2EowDNA6l-Nka9J6@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 2:27 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Syncing two servers in replication is common practice, as has been
> explained here; I'm still surprised people think otherwise. Measuring
> the time between two servers is the very purpose of the patch, so the
> synchronisation is not a design flaw, it is its raison d'etre.
I think the purpose of the patch should not be to measure the time
difference between servers, but rather the replication delay. While I
don't necessarily agree with Tom's statement that this is must-fix, I
do agree that it would be nicer if we could avoid depending on time
sync. Yeah, I keep my servers time synced, too. But, shit happens.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-06-02 18:44:43 | "caught_up" status in walsender |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2010-06-02 18:27:37 | Re: Keepalive for max_standby_delay |