Re: Proposal: Commit timestamp

Jan Wieck wrote:
> On 2/7/2007 11:12 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Jan Wieck wrote:
> >> On 2/7/2007 10:35 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >> > I find the term "logical proof of it's correctness" too restrictive. It
> >> > sounds like some formal academic process that really doesn't work well
> >> > for us.
> >>
> >> Thank you.
> >>
> >> > Also, I saw the trigger patch with no explaination of why it was
> >> > important or who would use it --- that also isn't going to fly well.
> >>
> >> You didn't respond to my explanation how the current Slony
> >> implementation could improve and evolve using it. Are you missing
> >> something? I am discussing this very issue with our own QA department,
> >> and thus far, I think I have a majority of "would use a pg_trigger
> >> backpatched PostgreSQL" vs. "No, I prefer a system that knows exactly
> >> how it corrupted my system catalog".
> >
> > No, I _now_ understand the use case, but when the patch was posted, the
> > use case was missing. I would like to see a repost with the patch, and
> > a description of its use so we can all move forward on that.
>
> Is this a new policy that after discussion, all patches must be
> resubmitted with a summary and conclusions of the discussion? I can
> certainly do that for you, but just tell me if you are going to ask the
> same from everyone.

No, I am asking only this time because I feel there was too much
disconnect between the patch and the extensive replication discussion
that few community members would see the connection.

I would also like to know what your new features does for each supported
option. I have not seen that spelled out yet at all.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +