Re: synchronized snapshots

On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 7:09 AM, Marko Tiikkaja
<marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 2011-09-28 15:25, Joachim Wieland wrote:
>>
>> Yes, that's the desired behaviour, the patch add this paragraph to the
>> documentation already:
>
> I can't believe I missed that.  My apologies.
>
> On 2011-09-29 05:16, Joachim Wieland wrote:
>>
>> The attached patch addresses the reported issues.
>
> Thanks, this one looks good to me.  Going to mark this patch as ready for
> committer.

I don't see any tests with this patch, so I personally won't be the
committer on this just yet.

Also, not sure why the snapshot id syntax has leading zeroes on first
part of the number, but not on second part. It will still sort
incorrectly if that's what we were trying to achieve. Either leave off
the leading zeroes on first part of add them to second.

We probably need some more discussion added to the README about this.

I'm also concerned that we are adding this to the BEGIN statement as
the only option. I don't have a problem with it being there, but I do
think it is a problem to make it the *only* way to use this. Altering
BEGIN gives clear problems with any API that does the begin and commit
for you, such as perl DBI, java JDBC to name just two. I can't really
see its a good implementation if we say this won't work until client
APIs follow our new non-standard syntax. I wouldn't block commit on
this point, but I think we should work on alternative ways to invoke
this feature as well.

--
 Simon Riggs                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services