On 6/30/11 10:25 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > So I think keeping it defined it terms of time is the > right way forward, even though the need for external time > synchronization is, certainly, not ideal.
Actually, when we last had the argument about time synchronization, Kevin Grittner (I believe) pointed out that unsynchronized replication servers have an assortment of other issues ... like any read query involving now(). As the person who originally brought up this hurdle, I felt that his argument defeated mine. Certainly I can't see any logical way to have time delay in the absence of clock synchronization of some kind. Also, I kinda feel like this discussion seems aimed at overcomplicating a feature which only a small fraction of our users will ever use. Let's keep it as simple as possible. As for delay on streaming replication, I'm for it. I think that post-9.1, thanks to pgbasebackup, the number of our users who are doing archive log shipping is going to drop tremendously. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
