On 10-12-07 10:05 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 15:25 -0500, Christopher Browne wrote:
>> Steve Singer<ssinger at ca.afilias.info>  writes:
>
> Yes, if server crashes, many things will be lost.
>
> It seems likely to me that there will few, if any, transactions for
> which we don't know the commit timestamp. All of the current
> transactions will be lost.
>
> Do we really need the timestamp for every single transaction? Surely we
> can make a good guess from the transactions before and after.
>

If all your doing is building a replication system that moves the slave 
from one consistent snapshot to another then you can just group the 
transactions with no timestamp into the next commit and be fine.

If one is trying to (as Chris alludes to) implement triggers on the 
slave that can use the commit timestamp then an approximation might not 
be good enough (depending on what these triggers are and the business 
requirements that have lead to them), but I am still unconvinced as to 
why you would want to use the commit timestamp (versus the timestamp of 
the individual operations) for something.