On 6/2/12, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> On the other hand, if we simply say "PostgreSQL computes the >> replication delay by subtracting the time at which the WAL was >> generated, as recorded on the master, from the time at which it is >> replayed by the slave" then, hey, we still have a wart, but it's >> pretty clear what the wart is and how to fix it, and we can easily >> document that. Again, if we could get rid of the failure modes and >> make this really water-tight, I think I'd be in favor of that, but it >> seems to me that we are in the process of expending a lot of energy >> and an even larger amount of calendar time to create a system that >> will misbehave in numerous subtle ways instead of one straightforward >> one. I don't see that as a good trade. > > Well, okay, but let's document "if you use this feature, it's incumbent > on you to make sure the master and slave clocks are synced. We > recommend running NTP." or words to that effect.
What if the two servers are in different time zones? -- Mike Nolan -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers