| 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
| 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 |