RE: [GENERAL] Transaction logging - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

What would it take to have transaction logging added to Postgres.  I am a
c/c++ programmer and will consider contributing to the Postgres development
effort.  I really like everything I see and read about Postgres.  As a
result, I am strongly considering Postgres as the database engine for my
Membership database application.  My customer is willing to invest in a
commercial database, but most of the commercial databases I have briefly
looked at fall a little short in one way or another.  I have several
concerns/needs that I am willing to implement and/or support:

    - Outer join support in views

    - Transaction logging

    - Some form of mirroring, shadowing, or replication

    - The current locking mechanism is of some concern.  I need to make
sure that one user can read a record and then a second can read and update
that same record.

    - If the first user attempts to update that record, what happens?

I know some of these requests are currently being worked, it would be
helpful to get some idea of when these items are expected to be released.

Thanks, Michael

    -----Original Message-----
    From:    sdupille@i-france.com [SMTP:sdupille@i-france.com]
    Sent:    Tuesday, February 23, 1999 6:08 AM
    To:    pgsql-general@postgreSQL.org
    Subject:    Re: [GENERAL] Transaction logging


        Hi !

    Peter T Mount <peter@retep.org.uk> writes:
    > > Has anyone implemented transaction logging in Postgres?  Any
suggestions on
    > > how to easily implement transaction logging?  Storing the log
file in a text
    > > file seems best but I am not sure out to open and write to a
text file from
    > > a trigger.  I would also be nice to post this transaction log
against a back
    > > up server.

    > Just a quick thought, but how about using syslog? That can be used
to post
    > queries to a remote server, and it can be told to store the
"postgres"
    > stuff to a seperate file on that server.

    > Just an idea...

        Why not, but I think it's a bad idea. Syslog is used to log
    events coming from the system. It stores every connection to the
    system, and any event which can affect the system (such as power
    shutdown).

        The transaction logging is a different taste of log : it
must
    store every transaction made to the database, and in case of
deletion
    of records, or change to data, it must save the old values. So it
    generates a lot of traffic, and is closely dependant of the database
    system.

        Syslog is not strong enough to deal with so much data, and
the
    use of an external process to get the transaction logging would
    generate too much traffic (the cost in time would be too high). The
    logging facility would, I think, be made by the database itself.

        Anything else : the logging facility is used to recover the
    database after a crash (mainly). This kind of log _must_ be easy to
    use in case of crash. Syslog is very well when you won't to know
what
    append, but not to deal with the problem. Don't forget that Syslog
add
    some data to the events we send to him (such as the sender and the
    date of the message). These data, in case of recovery by transaction
    logging mechanism, are noise, which get the recovery (a little bit)
    harder.

        I don't think that we could get a logging facility with the
    use of triggers. I think it would be better to hack the postgres
    backend, and supersedes the access to SQL primitives (like insert or
    update). It would be a little harder to implement, but faster and
    totally transparent to the user.

        regards.

    --
      ___
    {~._.~}                    Stephane - DUST - Dupille
     ( Y )            You were dust and you shall turn into dust
    ()~*~()                  email : sdupille@i-france.com
    (_)-(_)