On 2013-12-03 13:46:28 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 12:36 PM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello > <fabriziome...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 2:33 PM, Christian Kruse <christ...@2ndquadrant.com> > > wrote: > >> > >> Hi Fabrizio, > >> > >> looks good to me. I did some testing on 9.2.4, 9.2.5 and HEAD. It > >> applies and compiles w/o errors or warnings. I set up a master and two > >> hot standbys replicating from the master, one with 5 minutes delay and > >> one without delay. After that I created a new database and generated > >> some test data: > >> > >> CREATE TABLE test (val INTEGER); > >> INSERT INTO test (val) (SELECT * FROM generate_series(0, 1000000)); > >> > >> The non-delayed standby nearly instantly had the data replicated, the > >> delayed standby was replicated after exactly 5 minutes. I did not > >> notice any problems, errors or warnings. > >> > > > > Thanks for your review Christian... > > So, I proposed this patch previously and I still think it's a good > idea, but it got voted down on the grounds that it didn't deal with > clock drift. I view that as insufficient reason to reject the > feature, but others disagreed.
I really fail to see why clock drift should be this patch's responsibility. It's not like the world would go under^W data corruption would ensue if the clocks drift. Your standby would get delayed imprecisely. Big deal. From what I know of potential users of this feature, they would set it to at the very least 30min - that's WAY above the range for acceptable clock-drift on servers. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
