On 2/1/2007 11:23 PM, Jim Nasby wrote:
> On Jan 25, 2007, at 6:16 PM, Jan Wieck wrote:
>> If a per database configurable tslog_priority is given, the
>> timestamp will be truncated to milliseconds and the increment logic
>> is done on milliseconds. The priority is added to the timestamp.
>> This guarantees that no two timestamps for commits will ever be
>> exactly identical, even across different servers.
> Wouldn't it be better to just store that information separately,
> rather than mucking with the timestamp?
> Though, there's anothe issue here... I don't think NTP is good for
> any better than a few milliseconds, even on a local network.
> How exact does the conflict resolution need to be, anyway? Would it
> really be a problem if transaction B committed 0.1 seconds after
> transaction A yet the cluster thought it was the other way around?
Since the timestamp is basically a Lamport counter which is just bumped
be the clock as well, it doesn't need to be too precise.
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Theo Schlossnagle||Date: 2007-02-03 21:05:20|
|Subject: Re: Proposal: Commit timestamp|
|Previous:||From: Andrew Dunstan||Date: 2007-02-03 19:54:24|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] \copy (query) delimiter syntax error|