On Saturday 03 February 2007, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Jan Wieck wrote:
> > I don't have any such paper and the proof of concept will be the
> > implementation of the system. I do however see enough resistance against
> > this proposal to withdraw the commit timestamp at this time. The new
> > replication system will therefore require the installation of a patched,
> > non-standard PostgreSQL version, compiled from sources cluster wide in
> > order to be used. I am aware that this will dramatically reduce it's
> > popularity but it is impossible to develop this essential feature as an
> > external module.
> > I thank everyone for their attention.
> Going and working on it on your own doesn't seem like the proper
> solution. I don't see people objecting to adding it, but they want it
> work, which I am sure you want too. You have to show how it will work
> and convince others of that, and then you have a higher chance it will
> work, and be in the PostgreSQL codebase.
Would it be possible to solve the problem using the GORDA on-commit hook?
Jan would be able reliably obtain a commit timestamp with the desired
semantics and store it in a regular table within transaction boundaries.
PostgreSQL would not have to commit to a specific timestamp semantics and the
patch is quite small.
Jose Orlando Pereira
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?