| From: | Jakub Wartak <jakub(dot)wartak(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: doc: Mention clock synchronization recommendation for hot_standby_feedback |
| Date: | 2025-03-03 07:35:58 |
| Message-ID: | CAKZiRmyEBkR5tfwrzXaoC6D29Gp6g_fD6Bd_k58DjZV1=rbKdQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Amit,
On Mon, Mar 3, 2025 at 6:26 AM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
[..]
OK, sure.
> How about something like: "Note that if the clock on standby is moved
> ahead or backward, the feedback message may not be sent at the
> required interval. This can lead to prolonged risk of not removing
> dead rows on primary for extended periods as the feedback mechanism is
> based on timestamp."
Sure thing. I've just added '(..) In the extreme cases this can..' as
it is pretty rare to hit it. Patch attached.
-J.
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v2-0001-doc-Mention-clock-synchronization-recommendation-.patch | application/octet-stream | 1.3 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) | 2025-03-03 07:41:08 | RE: long-standing data loss bug in initial sync of logical replication |
| Previous Message | Richard Guo | 2025-03-03 07:34:45 | Re: Anti join confusion |