On Thu, 2010-06-03 at 12:47 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 13:14 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> This patch seems to me to be going in fundamentally the wrong direction. > >> It's adding complexity and overhead (far more than is needed), and it's > >> failing utterly to resolve the objections that I raised to start with. > > > Having read your proposal, it seems changing from time-on-sender to > > time-on-receiver is a one line change to the patch. > > > What else are you thinking of removing, if anything? > > Basically, we need to get rid of everything that feeds timestamps from > the WAL content into the kill-delay logic.
I understand your wish to do this, though it isn't always accurate to do that in the case where there is a backlog. The patch already does that *mostly* for the streaming case. The only time it does use the WAL content timestamp is when the WAL content timestamp is later than the oldest receive time, so in that case it is used as a correction. (see code comments and comments below also) > >> In particular, Simon seems to be basically refusing to do anything about > >> the complaint that the code fails unless master and standby clocks are > >> in close sync. I do not believe that this is acceptable, and since he > >> won't fix it, I guess I'll have to. > > > Syncing two servers in replication is common practice, as has been > > explained here; I'm still surprised people think otherwise. > > Doesn't affect the complaint in the least: I do not find it acceptable > to have that be *mandated* in order for our code to work sensibly. OK, accepted. > I would be OK with having something approaching what you want as a > non-default optional behavior (with a clearly-documented dependency > on having synchronized clocks). Yes, that's what I'd been thinking also. So that gives us a way forwards. standby_delay_base = apply (default) | send determines whether the standby_delay is calculated solely with reference to the standby server (apply) or whether times from the sending server are used (send). Use of send implies that the clocks on primary and standby are synchronised to within a useful accuracy, in which case it is usual to enforce that with time synchronisation software such as ntp. > But in any case the current behavior is > still quite broken as regards reading stale timestamps from WAL. Agreed. That wasn't the objective of this patch or a priority. If you're reading from an archive, you need to set max_standby_delay appropriately, current recommendation is -1. We can address that concern once the main streaming case is covered, or we can add that now. Are you planning to work on these things now as you said? How about I apply my patch now, then you do another set of changes afterwards to add the other items you mentioned, since that is now 2 additional parameters and related code? -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
