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)
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 |