| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Reporting the commit LSN at commit time |
| Date: | 2014-08-19 10:21:39 |
| Message-ID: | 20140819102139.GD5762@awork2.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2014-08-19 08:21:10 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 08/19/2014 01:03 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> > 2. I agree that it's not good to have this get controlled by a GUC.
> > If the behavior change is big enough that it's going to break clients,
> > adding a GUC isn't a sufficient remedy. If it's not, adding a GUC is
> > unnecessary.
>
> There's plenty of agreement on "not a GUC" - but what about alternatives?
What's the problem with the COMMIT WITH (report_lsn on) I've proposed?
Reporting the LSN in the command tag? Anything doing transparent
failover needs to be aware of transaction boundaries anyway.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2014-08-19 10:25:24 | Re: After switching primary server while using replication slot. |
| Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2014-08-19 10:18:47 | Re: Reporting the commit LSN at commit time |