Re: Exposing the Xact commit order to the user

Jan Wieck wrote:
> On 6/3/2010 4:04 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > 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.
>
> That comment was rather unprofessional. I think the rest of us still try
> to find the best solution for the problem, not kill the discussion. You
> may want to rejoin that effort.
>
> I care about an efficient, low overhead way to get a certain
> information, that is otherwise extremely difficult, expensive and
> version dependent to get.
>
> I care about cleaning up more of the mistakes, made in the original
> development of Slony. Namely using hacks and kluges to implement
> details, not supported by a current version of PostgreSQL. Londiste and
> Slony made a good leap on that with the txid data type. Slony made
> another step like that with 2.0, switching to the (for that very purpose
> developed and contributed) native trigger configuration instead of
> hacking system catalogs. This would be another step in that direction
> and we would be able to unify Londiste's and Slony's transport mechanism
> and eliminating the tick/sync kluge.
>
> Care to explain what exactly you care about?

Here is what I was replying to:

> >> I actually have a hard time understanding why people are so opposed t$
> > >> 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?

Jan's comment is why should others care what he wants because it has
zero impact? I am saying the community cares because we have to
maintain the code. I stand by my comment.

I remember a dismissive comment by Jan when 'session_replication_role'
was added, and a similar strong comment from me at that time as well.
It seems we are doing this again.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ None of us is going to be here forever. +