| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
| Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Audit Logs WAS: temporal support patch |
| Date: | 2012-08-23 04:34:33 |
| Message-ID: | 1345696473.9847.26.camel@jdavis |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 2012-08-21 at 17:56 -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> I don't think the concerns I raised about apparent order of
> execution for serializable transactions apply to audit logs. If
> we've moved entirely off the topic of the original subject, it is a
> complete non-issue.
Now I'm confused. The serializability issues you were talking about only
seem to matter with respect to system time (a.k.a. transaction time),
right? If the user is supplying the time, then it's a non-issue.
And audit logs are based on system time, so I thought that audit logs
were the case you were talking about.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-08-23 04:40:01 | Re: 9.2RC1 wraps this Thursday ... |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-08-23 03:41:02 | Re: A caveat of partitioning tables in the document |