| From: | "Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: XLog: how to log? |
| Date: | 2004-05-12 09:20:29 |
| Message-ID: | 46C15C39FEB2C44BA555E356FBCD6FA40184D0CA@m0114.s-mxs.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > I think this argument is largely a red herring ... but if it makes you
> > feel better, we could change the contents of the commit timestamp to
> > be gettimeofday() output (seconds+microseconds) instead of just time()
> > output. That should be precise enough for practical purposes.
>
> I am saying timestamp as used for specifying a recovery location might
> not be unique enough, no?
Maybe the api should allow a xid only in addition to a timestamp, for use when
timestamp alone is not precise enough. That would solve the problem of not
finding the xid. I would stay away from microseconds.
Andreas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Oleg Bartunov | 2004-05-12 11:09:46 | Re: Subtle pg_dump problem... |
| Previous Message | Thomas Hallgren | 2004-05-12 07:58:30 | Re: Module dependency on PostgeSQL version |