<div dir="ltr"><br /><div class="gmail_extra"><br /><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 5:05 PM, Andres
Freund<span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:andres@2ndquadrant.com" target="_blank">andres@2ndquadrant.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br/><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span
class="">On2014-11-02 19:27:25 +0100, Petr Jelinek wrote:<br /> > Well, Michael has point that the extradata is
prettymuch useless currently,<br /> > perhaps it would help to add the interface to set extradata?<br /><br
/></span>Onlyaccessible via C and useless aren't the same thing. But sure, add<br /> it.<br /></blockquote></div>I'm
stillon a -1 for that. You mentioned that there is perhaps no reason to delay a decision on this matter, but IMO there
isno reason to rush either in doing something we may regret. And I am not the only one on this thread expressing
concernabout this extra data thingy.<br /><br /></div><div class="gmail_extra">If this extra data field is going to be
usedto identify from which node a commit comes from, then it is another feature than what is written on the subject of
thisthread. In this case let's discuss it in the thread dedicated to replication identifiers, or come up with an extra
patchonce the feature for commit timestamps is done.<br /></div><div class="gmail_extra">-- <br /><div
class="gmail_signature">Michael<br/></div></div></div>