Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Provide 8-byte transaction IDs to user level

On Wednesday 26 July 2006 14:03, Tom Lane wrote:
> Darcy Buskermolen <darcyb(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> >> The question though is if we did that, would Slony actually use it?
> >
> > If it made sence to do it, then yes we would do it. The problem ends up
> > being Slony is designed to work across a multitude of versions of PG, and
> > unless this was backported to at least 7.4, it would take a while (ie
> > when we stopped supporting versions older than it was ported into)
> > before we would make use of it.
>
> [ shrug... ] That's not happening; for one thing the change requires a
> layout change in pg_control and we have no mechanism to do that without
> initdb.

I'll take a bit more of a look through the patch and see if it is a real boot
to use it on those platforms that support it, and that we have a suitable way
around it on those that don't. But at this point I wouldn't hold my breath
on that

>
> regards, tom lane

--
Darcy Buskermolen
CommandPrompt, Inc.
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
http://www.commandprompt.com