On Thu, Jun 6, 2024 at 3:43 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2024 at 7:29 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 9:37 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Can you share the use case of "earliest_timestamp_wins" resolution
> > > method? It seems after the initial update on the local node, it will
> > > never allow remote update to succeed which sounds a bit odd. Jan has
> > > shared this and similar concerns about this resolution method, so I
> > > have added him to the email as well.
> > >
> > I can not think of a use case exactly in this context but it's very
> > common to have such a use case while designing a distributed
> > application with multiple clients. For example, when we are doing git
> > push concurrently from multiple clients it is expected that the
> > earliest commit wins.
> >
>
> Okay, I think it mostly boils down to something like what Shveta
> mentioned where Inserts for a primary key can use
> "earliest_timestamp_wins" resolution method [1]. So, it seems useful
> to support this method as well.
Correct, but we still need to think about how to make it work
correctly in the presence of a clock skew as I mentioned in one of my
previous emails.
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
