On 1/25/2007 6:47 PM, Neil Conway wrote:
On Thu, 2007-01-25 at 18:16 -0500, Jan Wieck wrote:
For conflict resolution purposes in an asynchronous multimaster system,
the "last update" definition often comes into play. For this to work,
the system must provide a monotonically increasing timestamp taken at
the commit of a transaction.
Do you really need an actual timestamptz derived from the system clock,
or would a monotonically increasing 64-bit counter be sufficient? (The
assumption that the system clock is monotonically increasing seems
pretty fragile, in the presence of manual system clock changes, ntpd,
Yes, I do need it to be a timestamp, and one assumption is that all
servers in the multimaster cluster are ntp synchronized. The reason is
that this is for asynchronous multimaster (in my case). Two sequences
running on separate systems don't tell which was the "last update" on a
timeline. This conflict resolution method alone is of course completely
Comments, changes, additions?
Would this feature have any use beyond the specific project/algorithm
you have in mind?
The tablelog project on pgfoundry currently uses the transactions start
time but would be very delighted to have the commit time available instead.
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== [EMAIL PROTECTED] #
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at