Re: Proposal: Commit timestamp

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.

Jan

--
#======================================================================#
# 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 #