Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Proposal: Commit timestamp

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 (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
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,

> Comments, changes, additions?

Would this feature have any use beyond the specific project/algorithm
you have in mind?


In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2007-01-25 23:49:43
Subject: Re: Proposal: Commit timestamp
Previous:From: Jeremy DrakeDate: 2007-01-25 23:38:31
Subject: Re: [pgsql-patches] unprivileged pl install

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group