Re: Proposal: Commit timestamp

Jan Wieck wrote:
> On 2/8/2007 3:32 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >> > > 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.
> >
> > Right, I know it is useful too, but I would like a layout of what it
> > does and why so everyone is clear on it.
>
> I have no clue what got you into what you are doing here. But that shall
> not be my real concern. If you feel the need to do this sort of thing,
> be my guest. I will add the remaining changes to pg_rewrite, including
> the new support commands and changes to psql as well as pg_dump and
> resubmit the new patch with explanations that will hopefully help you to
> comprehend what and how this relatively small and fully backward
> compatible change in the trigger and rule firing mechanism will work and
> what existing problems it will solve.

Yep, that's what I want everyone to see. This is standard procedure for
everyone in the community, and core is not immune.

--
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. +