On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 12:01 PM, Michael Nolan <htf...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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?
NTP shouldn't have any problem; it uses UTC underneath. As does PostgreSQL, underneath. -- When confronted by a difficult problem, solve it by reducing it to the question, "How would the Lone Ranger handle this?" -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
