| From: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal: Commit timestamp |
| Date: | 2007-01-25 23:47:39 |
| Message-ID: | 1169768859.5432.9.camel@localhost.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 2007-01-25 at 18:16 -0500, Jan Wieck wrote:
> For conflict resolution purposes in an asynchronous multimaster system,
> the "last update" definition often comes into play. For this to work,
> the system must provide a monotonically increasing timestamp taken at
> the commit of a transaction.
Do you really need an actual timestamptz derived from the system clock,
or would a monotonically increasing 64-bit counter be sufficient? (The
assumption that the system clock is monotonically increasing seems
pretty fragile, in the presence of manual system clock changes, ntpd,
etc.)
> Comments, changes, additions?
Would this feature have any use beyond the specific project/algorithm
you have in mind?
-Neil
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-01-25 23:49:43 | Re: Proposal: Commit timestamp |
| Previous Message | Jeremy Drake | 2007-01-25 23:38:31 | Re: [pgsql-patches] unprivileged pl install |