| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | James Coleman <jtc331(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Add last commit LSN to pg_last_committed_xact() |
| Date: | 2022-01-19 01:05:46 |
| Message-ID: | 20220119010546.sqhtj5jcnmubwhz7@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2022-01-18 18:31:42 -0500, James Coleman wrote:
> One other question on this: if we went with this would you expect a
> new function to parallel pg_last_committed_xact()?
I don't think I have an opinion the user interface aspect.
> Or allow the xid and lsn in the return of pg_last_committed_xact()
> potentially not to match (of course xid might also not be present if
> track_commit_timestamps isn't on)? Or would you expect the current xid and
> timestamp use the new infrastructure also?
When you say "current xid", what do you mean?
I think it might make sense to use the new approach for all of these.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Allie Crawford | 2022-01-19 01:09:53 | Re: [Ext:] Re: Stream Replication not working |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2022-01-19 01:00:34 | Re: slowest tap tests - split or accelerate? |