From: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
---|---|
To: | Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)yahoo(dot)com> |
Cc: | Chris Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Exposing the Xact commit order to the user |
Date: | 2010-06-03 21:58:19 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTilUsoN34UmSrYhYRiMHyOyu1lmVvNjQhX3uTjcZ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 8:50 PM, Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote:
>> I'm puzzled how you would define this value. How do you add 7 inserts,
>> 7 deletes, and 7 updates? Is that 21 rows modified?
>
> I actually have a hard time understanding why people are so opposed to a
> feature that has zero impact at all unless a DBA actually turns in ON. What
> is the problem with exposing the commit order of transactions?
The post you were responding to was regarding the meaninglessness of
the "number of records" attribute you wanted. Your response is a non
sequitor.
I think the commit order of transactions would be a good thing to
expose though I've asked repeatedly what kind of interface you need
and never gotten answers to all the questions.
--
greg
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dan Colish | 2010-06-03 22:02:46 | Re: SET CONSTRAINTS todo |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2010-06-03 21:31:54 | Re: Allow wal_keep_segments to keep all segments |