On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 11:22:42AM -0400, Jan Wieck wrote:
> 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 

Well, we currently don't have any multi-master systems that aren't
statement-based, so I'd be happy for just having a commit ID right
now... I suspect that a future multi-master system could still make use
of a plain commit ID as well (though it'd obviously need something more
than that).
-- 
Decibel!, aka Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect  decibel at decibel.org 
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.slony.info/pipermail/slony1-hackers/attachments/20070924/03e266d7/attachment.pgp