Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 11:52 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: >> I am afraid the current setting is tempting for users to enable, but >> will be so unpredictable that it will tarnish the repuation of HS and >> Postgres. We don't want to be thinking in 9 months, "Wow, we shouldn't >> have shipped that features. It is causing all kinds of problems." We >> have done that before (rarely), and it isn't a good feeling. > > I am not convinced it will be unpredictable. The only caveats that > I've seen so far are: > > - You need to run ntpd. > - Queries will get cancelled like crazy if you're not using steaming > replication.
And also in situations where the master is idle for a while and then starts doing stuff. That's the most significant source of confusion, IMHO, I wouldn't mind the requirement of ntpd so much. > That just doesn't sound that bad to me, especially since the proposed > alternative is: > > - Queries will get cancelled like crazy, period. > > Or else: > > - Replication can fall infinitely far behind and you can write a > tedious and error-prone script to try to prevent it if you like. > > I think THAT is going to tarnish our reputation. The difference is that that's easy to document and understand, so the behavior won't be a surprise to anyone. -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
