Re: Point in Time Recovery

From: spock(at)mgnet(dot)de
To: Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Point in Time Recovery
Date: 2004-07-06 10:54:55
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.58.0407061250040.14377@spock.intra.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, 6 Jul 2004, Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD wrote:

> > Should we use a different datatype than time_t for the commit timestamp,
> > one that offers more fine grained differentiation between checkpoints?
>
> Imho seconds is really sufficient. If you know a more precise position
> you will probably know it from backend log or an xlog sniffer. With those
> you can easily use the TransactionId way.

I'd also think that seconds are absolutely sufficient. From my daily
experience I can say that you're normally lucky to know the time
on one minute basis.
If you need to get closer, a log sniffer is unavoidable ...

Greetings, Klaus

--
Full Name : Klaus Naumann | (http://www.mgnet.de/) (Germany)
Phone / FAX : ++49/177/7862964 | E-Mail: (kn(at)mgnet(dot)de)

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2004-07-06 12:09:23 Re: [Plperlng-devel] strange bug in plperl
Previous Message Christopher Kings-Lynne 2004-07-06 10:51:57 Re: More thoughts on drop tablespace