From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Jaime Casanova <jaime(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: tracking commit timestamps |
Date: | 2014-11-04 13:01:00 |
Message-ID: | 20141104130100.GZ1791@alvin.alvh.no-ip.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-www |
Michael Paquier wrote:
> I'm still on a -1 for that. You mentioned that there is perhaps no reason
> to delay a decision on this matter, but IMO there is no reason to rush
> either in doing something we may regret. And I am not the only one on this
> thread expressing concern about this extra data thingy.
>
> If this extra data field is going to be used to identify from which node a
> commit comes from, then it is another feature than what is written on the
> subject of this thread. In this case let's discuss it in the thread
> dedicated to replication identifiers, or come up with an extra patch once
> the feature for commit timestamps is done.
Introducing the extra data field in a later patch would mean an on-disk
representation change, i.e. pg_upgrade trouble.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2014-11-04 13:18:57 | Re: TAP test breakage on MacOS X |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2014-11-04 12:11:04 | Re: Sequence Access Method WIP |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2014-11-04 13:38:49 | Re: tracking commit timestamps |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2014-11-04 08:56:31 | Re: tracking commit timestamps |