RE: Patch for migration of the pg_commit_ts directory

From: "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com>
To: 'ls7777' <ls7777(at)yandex(dot)ru>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "orlovmg(at)gmail(dot)com" <orlovmg(at)gmail(dot)com>, "amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com" <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: RE: Patch for migration of the pg_commit_ts directory
Date: 2026-03-19 05:30:41
Message-ID: OS9PR01MB12149BC0A686B802D4C8D4FE3F54FA@OS9PR01MB12149.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Dear Sergey,

> This is a safer strategy to help you avoid losing the data that the user needs. I received a recommendation to do so.

I think we need stronger use-case to proceed like that.
Did you get recommendations from customers/users? If so, why do they want to
avoid losing the commit timestamp? Are they collaborating some other systems?
Your voice/experience is really needed.

Best regards,
Hayato Kuroda
FUJITSU LIMITED

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message JoongHyuk Shin 2026-03-19 05:40:05 pg_dump: fix NOT NULL constraint name comparison using makeObjectName
Previous Message Chao Li 2026-03-19 05:06:24 Re: tablecmds: fix bug where index rebuild loses replica identity on partitions