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.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ None of us is going to be here forever. +
