Marko Kreen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Following patch exports 8 byte txid and snapshot to user level
allowing its use in regular SQL. It is based on Slony-I xxid
module. It provides special 'snapshot' type for snapshot but
uses regular int8 for transaction ID's.
Per discussion, I've applied
On 7/27/06, Darcy Buskermolen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In one of those 3am lightbulbs I belive I have a way to make use of the 64-bit
XID counter and still maintain the ability to have backwards compatibility.
Is there any chance you could break this patch up into the 2 separate
componenets that
On Wednesday 26 July 2006 14:27, Darcy Buskermolen wrote:
On Wednesday 26 July 2006 14:03, Tom Lane wrote:
Darcy Buskermolen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The question though is if we did that, would Slony actually use it?
If it made sence to do it, then yes we would do it. The problem
I am sure you worked hard on this, but I don't see the use case, nor
have I heard people in the community requesting such functionality.
Perhaps pgfoundry would be a better place for this.
---
Marko Kreen wrote:
Intro
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am sure you worked hard on this, but I don't see the use case, nor
have I heard people in the community requesting such functionality.
Perhaps pgfoundry would be a better place for this.
The part of this that would actually be useful to put in core is
On Wednesday 26 July 2006 13:04, Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am sure you worked hard on this, but I don't see the use case, nor
have I heard people in the community requesting such functionality.
Perhaps pgfoundry would be a better place for this.
The part of
Darcy Buskermolen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The question though is if we did that, would Slony actually use it?
If it made sence to do it, then yes we would do it. The problem ends up being
Slony is designed to work across a multitude of versions of PG, and unless
this was backported to at
On Wednesday 26 July 2006 14:03, Tom Lane wrote:
Darcy Buskermolen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The question though is if we did that, would Slony actually use it?
If it made sence to do it, then yes we would do it. The problem ends up
being Slony is designed to work across a multitude of
Darcy Buskermolen wrote:
On Wednesday 26 July 2006 14:03, Tom Lane wrote:
Darcy Buskermolen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The question though is if we did that, would Slony actually use it?
If it made sence to do it, then yes we would do it. The problem ends up
being Slony is designed
