On 19/11/14 12:20, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 19 November 2014 02:12, Petr Jelinek <petr@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>
>> Maybe we need better explanation of the LSN use-case(s) to understand why it
>> should be stored here and why the other solutions are significantly worse.
>
> We should apply the same standard that has been applied elsewhere. If
> someone can show some software that could actually make use of LSN and
> there isn't a better way, then we can include it.
>
> ...
>
> We still have many months before even beta for people that want LSN to
> make a *separate* case for its inclusion as a separate feature.
>
This is good point, we are not too late in the cycle that LSN couldn't
be added later if we find that it is indeed needed (and we don't have to
care about pg_upgrade until beta).
-- Petr Jelinek http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training &
Services
