| From: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Reporting the commit LSN at commit time |
| Date: | 2014-08-19 13:47:26 |
| Message-ID: | 53F3556E.6090908@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 08/19/2014 06:21 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> What's the problem with the COMMIT WITH (report_lsn on) I've proposed?
> Reporting the LSN in the command tag? Anything doing transparent
> failover needs to be aware of transaction boundaries anyway.
Tom's objection to a GUC applies there too - a client app can send that
when the underlying driver doesn't expect to get the results.
I'm not completely convinced that's a problem - oh dear, the app breaks.
The answer to so many other things in Pg is "well, don't do that then"
that I don't see this as overly different.
However, granting that it is a problem, the same objection to a GUC
applies to this too.
--
Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2014-08-19 13:50:11 | Re: Reporting the commit LSN at commit time |
| Previous Message | MauMau | 2014-08-19 13:44:22 | Re: proposal for 9.5: monitoring lock time for slow queries |