On Mon, 2012-08-20 at 19:32 -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote: > Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> wrote: > > > This is sounding like a completely runaway spec on what should be > > a simple feature. > > I hate to contribute to scope creep (or in this case scope screaming > down the tracks at full steam), but I've been watching this with a > queasy feeling about interaction with Serializable Snapshot > Isolation (SSI).
There are all kinds of challenges here, and I'm glad you're thinking about them. I alluded to some problems here: http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/1345415312.20987.56.camel@jdavis But those might be a subset of the problems you're talking about. It sounds like, at a high level, there are two problems: 1. capturing the apparent order of execution in the audit log 2. assigning meaningful times to the changes that are consistent with the apparent order of execution Regards, Jeff Davis -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers