On Thu, Nov 7, 2024 at 9:39 PM Jan Wieck <j...@wi3ck.info> wrote: > > On 11/6/24 21:30, Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) wrote: > > > > Thanks for the patch! I am reading the patch and noticed few minor things. > > > > 1. > > + /* > > + * This is a local transaction. Make sure that the xact_time > > + * higher than any timestamp we have seen thus far. > > + * > > + * TODO: This is not postmaster restart safe. If the local > > + * system clock is further behind other nodes than it takes > > + * for the postmaster to restart (time between it stops > > + * accepting new transactions and time when it becomes ready > > + * to accept new transactions), local transactions will not > > + * be bumped into the future correctly. > > + */ > > > > The TODO section mentions other nodes, but I believe think patch currently > > do > > not have the handling of timestamps for other nodes. Should we either remove > > this part or add a brief explanation to clarify the relationship with other > > nodes? > > That TODO is actually obsolete. I understood from Amit Kapila that the > community does assume that NTP synchronization is good enough. >
This is my understanding from the relevant discussion in the email thread [1]. [1] - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/2423650.1726842094%40sss.pgh.pa.us -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
