Jan Wieck <janwi...@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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? FWIW, once I came to understand the use case, it seems to me a perfectly reasonable and useful thing to have. It does strike me that there may be value to add one more xid to support certain types of integrity for some use cases, but that's certainly something which could be added later, if at all. Once I realized that, I just dropped out of the discussion; perhaps I should have bowed out with an endorsement. Unless my memory is failing me worse than usual, Dan Ports, who is working on the serializable implementation so he can use the predicate locking with a transaction-aware caching feature, needs the ability to track commit order of transactions by xid; so the use cases go beyond Slony and Londiste. -Kevin
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
