On 01/03/2013 04:51 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
Robert Haas wrote:
Christopher Browne <cbbro...@gmail.com> wrote:
these timestamps Should Not be captured or carried forward by
pg_dump.
If we put a creation time into pg_database or pg_class, then
streaming replication will, as a "physical" replication
mechanism, carry the timestamp forward into replicas
And in contrast, I'd expect Andres Freund's logical replication
infrastructure *NOT* to carry these dates over, but rather to
establish fresh new creation dates on a replica. (And from a
forensic perspective, that's a perfectly fine thing.)
I agree all around.
+1

My analogy would be to xmin in tuples. Anything that preserves that
should preserve table creation timestamp. If the tuples' xmin
values in the table receiving the data differ, the creation
timestamp should, too.

In my experience, this would have been valuable forensic
information many times. Preserving xmin rather than aggressively
freezing never has been or would have been useful to me.



I don't especially have a horse in the race, but ISTM that if you want the information you want it to be able to persist across dump/restore, at least optionally. If you can happily lose it when you're forced to recover using a logical dump then it's not that important to you.


cheers

andrew


--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Reply via email to