"Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes:
> I would agree with this. We would need a history of checkpoints that
> didn't reset until we told it to.
Indeed, but the submitted patch has nought whatsoever to do with that.
It exposes some instantaneous state.
You could perhaps *build* a log facility on top of that, at the SQL
level; but I don't see the point, and I definitely disagree that it
would be "easier than trolling the logs".
regards, tom lane
