On 4/15/06, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > The point is that the test does not have a
> > one-second window of showing the wrong answer, meaning I could wait for
> > 60 seconds, and still see the wrong WAL file at the top.
>
> Oh, I see your point: you can lose at most one second's worth of data,
> but that second could be arbitrarily long ago if it was the latest
> activity in the database. Yeah, that's a bit unpleasant. So we really
> do need both parts of the ordering rule, and there seems no way to do
> that with just 'ls'.
>
> I wonder if you could do anything with find(1)'s -newer switch?
> It seems to be a '>' condition not a '>=' condition, so it'd be
> pretty awkward ... certainly not a one-liner.
>
> I think everyone agrees that adding a SQL function would be a reasonable
> thing to do, anyway.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
specially for those using windows that hadn't those wonderfull tools... :)
--
regards,
Jaime Casanova
"What they (MySQL) lose in usability, they gain back in benchmarks, and that's
all that matters: getting the wrong answer really fast."
Randal L. Schwartz