Re: uptime function to postmaster

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Euler Taveira de Oliveira <eulerto(at)yahoo(dot)com(dot)br>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: uptime function to postmaster
Date: 2005-06-06 17:59:59
Message-ID: 14549.1118080799@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches

Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> I think we should return intervals only when we can't return meaningful
> timestamp values. I don't have any logic to back up that opinion, though.

It's easy: a value measured as an interval will be obsolete by the time
it's delivered to the client. A start timestamp is actually meaningful
information that will still be correct when used; uptime is fragile.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2005-06-06 18:30:53 Re: logfile for psql patch update
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2005-06-06 17:54:25 Re: uptime function to postmaster