On Mon, 2012-08-20 at 19:32 -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:
>
> > This is sounding like a completely runaway spec on what should be
> > a simple feature.
>
> I hate to contribute to scope creep (or in this case scope screaming
> down the tracks at full steam), but I've been watching this with a
> queasy feeling about interaction with Serializable Snapshot
> Isolation (SSI).
There are all kinds of challenges here, and I'm glad you're thinking
about them. I alluded to some problems here:
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/1345415312.20987.56.camel@jdavis
But those might be a subset of the problems you're talking about.
It sounds like, at a high level, there are two problems:
1. capturing the apparent order of execution in the audit log
2. assigning meaningful times to the changes that are consistent with
the apparent order of execution
Regards,Jeff Davis
