Re: tracking commit timestamps

On 31/10/14 15:07, Tom Lane wrote:
> Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com> writes:
>> It's also requested now and then in the context of auditing and
>> forensic analysis of application problems.  But I also agree that the
>> tolerance for performance overhead is got to be quite low.  If a GUC
>> is introduced to manage the tradeoff, it should be defaulted to 'on'.
>
> Alvaro's original submission specified that the feature defaults to "off".
> Since there's no use-case for it unless you've installed some third-party
> code (eg an external replication solution), I think that should stay true.
> The feature's overhead might be small, but it is most certainly not zero,
> and people shouldn't be paying for it unless they need it.
>

Agreed, that's why it stayed 'off' in my version too.


--  Petr Jelinek                  http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training &
Services