Re: Proposal: Commit timestamp

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> 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:
> > >>
> > >> > 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.

FYI, in my opinion the trigger addition is clearly useful to Mammoth
Replicator as well. In fact, it's so obviously useful that I didn't see
a need to state that in the original thread where it was discussed.

Not sure about the timestamp stuff, because Replicator is not
multi-master, so there's no conflict resolution to take care of.

--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.