On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 6:14 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> I believe that the motivation for treating archived timestamps as live
> is, essentially, to force rapid catchup if a slave falls behind so far
> that it's reading from archive instead of SR.
Huh, I think this is the first mention of this that I've seen. I
always assumed the motivation was just that you wanted to control how
much data loss could occur on failover and how long recovery would
take. I think separating the two delays is an interesting idea but I
don't see how it counts as a simplification.
This also still allows a slave to become arbitrarily far behind the
master. The master might take a long time to fill up a log file, and
if the slave is blocked for a few minutes, then requests the next bit
of log file and blocks for a few more minutes, then requests the next
log file and blocks for a few more minutes, etc. As long as the slave
is reading more slowly than the master is filling those segments it
will fall further and further behind but never be more than a few
minutes behind receiving the logs.
I propose an alternate way out of the problem of syncing two clocks.
Instead of comparing timestamps compare time intervals. So as it reads
xlog records it only ever compares the master timestamps with previous
master timestamps to determine how much time has elapsed on the
master. It compares that time elapsed with the time elapsed on the
slave to determine if it's falling behind. I'm assuming it
periodically catches up and can throw out its accumulated time elapsed
and start fresh. If not then the accumulated error might be a problem,
but hopefully one we can find a solution to.
--
greg