Re: uptime function to postmaster

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/

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  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()