br...@momjian.us (Bruce Momjian) writes: > Jan Wieck wrote: >> The point is not that we don't have that information now. The point is >> having a hint BEFORE wading through possibly gigabytes of WAL or log data. >> >> If getting that information requires to read all the log data twice or >> the need to read gigabytes of otherwise useless WAL data (as per Bruce's >> suggestion), we better not get it at all and just keep doing what we are >> doing now. >> >> 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? > > If you want to fork Postgres and add it, go ahead, but if the community > has to maintain the code and document it, we care.
Are you "caring" or "opposing"? It seems rather uncharitable to imply that Jan doesn't care. I know *I'm* not interested in a forked Postgres for this - I would prefer to find out what things could be done that don't involve gross amounts of WAL file grovelling for data that mayn't necessarily even be available. -- select 'cbbrowne' || '@' || 'cbbrowne.com'; http://cbbrowne.com/info/internet.html "MS apparently now has a team dedicated to tracking problems with Linux and publicizing them. I guess eventually they'll figure out this back fires... ;)" -- William Burrow <aa...@delete.fan.nb.ca> -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers