From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Gaetano Mendola <mendola(at)bigfoot(dot)com> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: postgres uptime |
Date: | 2004-08-21 00:35:22 |
Message-ID: | 16688.1093048522@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Gaetano Mendola <mendola(at)bigfoot(dot)com> writes:
>> I think we should just call gettimeofday() at postmaster start and store
>> it somewhere.
> Isn't the shared memory a good place ?
Depends. Do you want to reset it during a backend-crash-recovery cycle?
You'll have to, if it's only stored in shared memory. Depending on what
your definition of "uptime" is, that could be a reasonable thing to do,
or not.
There's been a remarkable lack of discussion about exactly what this
number would mean, anyway. Does "postmaster start" mean postmaster
process start? Or when we are first ready to receive a connection?
There could be a *very* large difference, in the case of a hot-standby
postmaster.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-08-21 03:08:45 | Re: devx article |
Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2004-08-21 00:25:54 | Re: devx article |