On 8/28/12 2:51 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>The thing I don't like about this is it assumes that time is the best way to
>refer to when things changed in a system. Not only is that a bad assumption,
>it also means that relating things to history becomes messy.
On second hand I don't have a problem with some optional counter,
although I think so database system time is very useful and other
counters for versioning are not necessary - because in one time I can
have only one version - it doesn't do versions from rollbacked
transactions.

What happens if the system clock runs backwards?

What happens if two transactions start in the same microsecond? (And I know for 
a fact that's possible, because I've seen it).

More importantly, I believe using time to handle recording a versioned history 
of something is flawed to begin with. You might care about what time a new 
version was created; but what's far more important is recording the correct 
ordering of things, and time isn't actually a great way to do that.

Note that no version control systems use time as their primary attribute.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect                   j...@nasby.net
512.569.9461 (cell)                         http://jim.nasby.net


--
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