On 9/21/2007 6:40 PM, Decibel! wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 11:50:41AM -0700, David Fetter wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 09:44:59PM +0300, Marko Kreen wrote:
>> > On 9/20/07, Decibel! <decibel at decibel.org> wrote:
>> > > Seeing the complete duplication of txid.sql between Slony and
>> > > londiste bugs me, so I'm hoping we can come up with a replacement
>> > > for that in core, and the replica-hooks list seems the logical way
>> > > to discuss that...
>> > 
>> > You forgot to give link to list:
>> > 
>> >  http://pgfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/replica-hooks-discuss
>> > 
>> > 
>> > Compared of to rest of replica-hooks discussion, this is pretty
>> > straightforward affair, not much to discuss here.
> 
> Actually, what I'm really wondering is if a "commit ID" analogous to a
> transaction ID but set at commit time (and in order of commits) would
> vastly simplify things...

It would simplify things for a single master, multiple slaves system. 
But a pure ID won't help a multimaster system at all. If you are 
proposing that this "ID" does make use of a clock value in addition to 
methods that ensure global uniqueness of ID's in order to provide the 
base for time line based conflict resolution in a multimaster system 
(which is what I last proposed together with the pg_trigger and 
pg_rewrite changes), then I'm all ears.

But be careful! Do not use words like "timestamp" or "clock" when you 
describe your mechanism. Everyone with some half knowledge gained from 
reading IT-World will jump down your throat if you do.


Jan

-- 
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me.                                  #
#================================================== JanWieck at Yahoo.com #