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? Adding an extra parameter adds more obviously and is something I now agree with. > 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. Measuring the time between two servers is the very purpose of the patch, so the synchronisation is not a design flaw, it is its raison d'etre. There's been a few spleens emptied on that topic, not all of them mine, and certainly no consensus on that. So I'm not refusing to do anything that's been agreed... -- 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
