bruce@momjian.us (Bruce Momjian) writes:
> 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.
Are you "caring" or "opposing"? It seems rather uncharitable to imply
that Jan doesn't care.
I know *I'm* not interested in a forked Postgres for this - I would
prefer to find out what things could be done that don't involve gross
amounts of WAL file grovelling for data that mayn't necessarily even
be available.
--
select 'cbbrowne' || '@' || 'cbbrowne.com';
http://cbbrowne.com/info/internet.html
"MS apparently now has a team dedicated to tracking problems with
Linux and publicizing them. I guess eventually they'll figure out
this back fires... ;)" -- William Burrow <aa126@DELETE.fan.nb.ca>
