Re: PITR Phase 2 - Design Planning

Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> The context of my suggestion was for recovering up until a transaction which
> messed things up was committed. I did not want the problem transaction to
> be committed. If the problem transaction ran for a long time, there might
> be other transactions that I want to keep, if possible, that committed
> after the problem transaction started and before it ended.

Ah! followed by Eek! Now I see the light. It's very bright and painful.

What I can see is that expressing this accurately and unambiguously is
going to be _difficult_. How do you know accurately the point just
before a transaction was completed. There must be a good subset of
candidates that can be labelled.

Is there anyway to label/name a transaction that can be kept somewhere ?
Like "begin transaction 'bigtrasacation26';" - is there any allowance in
the SQL standards for naming trasactions ?

PS I have fixed my system clock - apologies to my earlier reply being a
month ahead.

rgds,
--
Peter