| From: | "Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Markus Schiltknecht" <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch>, "Theo Schlossnagle" <jesus(at)omniti(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Jan Wieck" <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>, "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, "Jim Nasby" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal: Commit timestamp |
| Date: | 2007-02-06 09:25:29 |
| Message-ID: | E1539E0ED7043848906A8FF995BDA57901C12E1A@m0143.s-mxs.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> What I'm more concerned about, with Jan's proposal, is the assumption
> that you always want to resolve conflicts by time (except for
> balances,
> for which we don't have much information, yet). I'd rather
Um, I think the proposal was only for beneficial backend functionality
for replication in general and time based conflict resolution. And "time
based"
is surely one of the important conflict resolution methods for async MM
replication.
Sure there are others, like "rule based" "priority based" but I think
you don't need additional backend functionality for those.
Andreas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2007-02-06 09:28:55 | Re: Referential Integrity and SHARE locks |
| Previous Message | jon5pg | 2007-02-06 09:22:07 | Re: Pl/pgsql functions causing crashes in 8.2.2 |