On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On Dec 12, you said "It also strikes me that anything > that is based on augmenting the walsender/walreceiver protocol leaves > anyone who is using WAL shipping out in the cold. I'm not clear from > the comments you or Simon have made how important you think that use > case still is." > > Not wanting to leave anyone out in the cold, I proposed something to > enhance file based replication also.
Fair enough. I am still of the opinion that we ought to commit some version of the pg_last_xact_insert_timestamp patch. I accept that patch isn't going to solve every problem, but I still think it's worth having. If one of these other solutions comes along and turns out to work great, that's fine, too; but I don't think any of them are so compelling that we can credibly say that pg_last_xact_insert_timestamp is useless or obsolete. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
