| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Naz Gassiep <naz(at)mira(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal: Commit timestamp |
| Date: | 2007-01-26 14:38:49 |
| Message-ID: | 20070126143849.GP24675@kenobi.snowman.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Jan Wieck (JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com) wrote:
> On 1/26/2007 2:37 AM, Naz Gassiep wrote:
> >I would be *very* concerned that system time is not a guaranteed
> >monotonic entity. Surely a counter or other internally managed mechanism
> >would be a better solution.
>
> Such a counter has only "local" relevance. How do you plan to compare
> the two separate counters on different machines to tell which
> transaction happened last?
I'd also suggest you look into Lamport timestamps... Trusting the
system clock just isn't practical, even with NTP. I've developed
(albeit relatively small) systems using Lamport timestamps and would be
happy to talk about it offlist. I've probably got some code I could
share as well.
Thanks,
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-01-26 15:05:10 | Re: crash on 8.2 and cvshead - failed to add item to the |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2007-01-26 14:36:37 | Re: autovacuum process handling |