From: | Euler Taveira de Oliveira <eulerto(at)yahoo(dot)com(dot)br> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: uptime function to postmaster |
Date: | 2005-06-06 17:33:37 |
Message-ID: | 20050606173338.58310.qmail@web32701.mail.mud.yahoo.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Hi Bruce,
>
> I think we are best with just pg_startime. If people want the
> interval
> they can subtract it from CURRENT_TIMESTAMP. I have added Matthias's
> version to the patch queue.
>
>
OK. But IIRC the Matthias implementation doesn't work in standalone
mode. And talking about the 'interval', I think it's too ugly make
this:
select CURRENT_TIMESTAMP - pg_starttime();
Isn't it more simple do this?
select pg_uptime();
I think few people will use start_time and more people will use uptime
that's why I propose the 'uptime' function.
Talking abouts names, IMHO we need to go with uptime() and
start_time(). Why? That's because a system function and it's about
server. When we implement backend uptime, we can go with
connection_uptime() and connection_start_time().
Comments?
Euler Taveira de Oliveira
euler[at]yahoo_com_br
__________________________________________________
Converse com seus amigos em tempo real com o Yahoo! Messenger
http://br.download.yahoo.com/messenger/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-06-06 17:49:54 | Re: regexp_replace |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-06-06 16:44:23 | Re: pg_starttime() |