Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Gregory Stark escribió:
"Decibel!" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On Nov 2, 2007, at 11:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
[ splorfff... ] The grammar support alone will cost ten times that.
When next we meet, expect me to ask you how that's pronounced. ;)
>>> On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 1:16 PM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Alvaro Herrera
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gregory Stark escribió:
>> "Decibel!" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > On Nov 2, 2007, at 11:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> >> [ splorfff... ] The grammar support alone will cost ten t
Gregory Stark escribió:
> "Decibel!" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Nov 2, 2007, at 11:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> [ splorfff... ] The grammar support alone will cost ten times that.
> >
> > When next we meet, expect me to ask you how that's pronounced. ;)
>
> I think it can only be proper
"Decibel!" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Nov 2, 2007, at 11:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> [ splorfff... ] The grammar support alone will cost ten times that.
>
> When next we meet, expect me to ask you how that's pronounced. ;)
I think it can only be properly pronounced with a mug of coffee
--
On Nov 2, 2007, at 11:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
[ splorfff... ] The grammar support alone will cost ten times that.
When next we meet, expect me to ask you how that's pronounced. ;)
--
Decibel!, aka Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distr
On Mon, 2007-11-05 at 11:58 +0530, Gokulakannan Somasundaram wrote:
> The idea was to write a syncpoint every N seconds where we
> record the
> time and a snapshot of what's in progress.
>
> What exactly is getting recorded here? Will the Syncpoint be similar
> to the Und
On 11/4/07, Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2007-11-02 at 13:40 +0100, Hans-Juergen Schoenig wrote:
> > >
> > > I think Simon Riggs is already working on that idea. This one is
> > > fairly easy to implement. I think these are some of the features
> > > only a time-stamp based da
On Fri, 2007-11-02 at 13:40 +0100, Hans-Juergen Schoenig wrote:
> >
> > I think Simon Riggs is already working on that idea. This one is
> > fairly easy to implement. I think these are some of the features
> > only a time-stamp based database can implement. I think database
> > standards were form
On 11/2/07, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Gokulakannan Somasundaram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The feature i am talking about is very simple and it won't even add
> > 100 lines of code into the Postgres source code base.
>
> [ splorfff... ] The grammar support alone will cost ten ti
"Gokulakannan Somasundaram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 11/2/07, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [ splorfff... ] The grammar support alone will cost ten times that.
> But i guess(I may be wrong), you may be wrong about the grammar support
> part.
Well, a crude estimate is that SELECT
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 2 Nov 2007 22:33:16 +0530
"Gokulakannan Somasundaram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Tom,
>If you have made this comment, when i requested for the
> comment, i would have dropped this idea there itself. :). But please
> let me know
On 11/2/07, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Gokulakannan Somasundaram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The feature i am talking about is very simple and it won't even add
> > 100 lines of code into the Postgres source code base.
>
> [ splorfff... ] The grammar support alone will cost ten
"Gokulakannan Somasundaram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The feature i am talking about is very simple and it won't even add
> 100 lines of code into the Postgres source code base.
[ splorfff... ] The grammar support alone will cost ten times that.
You should probably reflect on the fact that n
On 11/2/07, Hans-Juergen Schoenig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> I think Simon Riggs is already working on that idea. This one is fairly
> easy to implement. I think these are some of the features only a time-stamp
> based database can implement. I think database standards were formed during
> th
I think Simon Riggs is already working on that idea. This one is
fairly easy to implement. I think these are some of the features
only a time-stamp based database can implement. I think database
standards were formed during the time, when the data consistency
was provided with Lock based
On 11/2/07, Jonah H. Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 11/2/07, Gokulakannan Somasundaram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If the proposal is implemented
> > BEGIN
> >
> > savepoint s1;
> >
> > some DML operations
> >
> > get current inventory2 = select ...
> >
> > if current inventory2 is < f
On 11/2/07, Gokulakannan Somasundaram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If the proposal is implemented
> BEGIN
>
> savepoint s1;
>
> some DML operations
>
> get current inventory2 = select ...
>
> if current inventory2 is < fixed size
> current inventory1 = select .. as of savepoint s1;
> END
>
> Do
On 11/2/07, Martijn van Oosterhout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 02:43:44PM +0530, Gokulakannan Somasundaram wrote:
> > Hi,
> >I would like to propose an additional feature for Postgres to enable
> > time-travelling inside a transaction.
>
>
>
> > This would reduce the
On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 02:43:44PM +0530, Gokulakannan Somasundaram wrote:
> Hi,
>I would like to propose an additional feature for Postgres to enable
> time-travelling inside a transaction.
> This would reduce the requirement for Serializable transactions in some
> cases and adds one more f
Hi,
I would like to propose an additional feature for Postgres to enable
time-travelling inside a transaction.
I went through the source code and i found Savepoint is already saving the
necessary information. But currently it doesn't store the CommandId.
This change, if implemented would save
20 matches
Mail list logo
