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: 2005-06-07 03:50:03
Message-ID: 20050607035003.85668.qmail@web32710.mail.mud.yahoo.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches

Hi Bruce,

> 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.
>
Agreed.

>
> We need to preceed our function names with pg_ for cases like this
> where
> we are supplying pg-specific behavior.
>
Agreed.

An updated version of the patch is attached. It is just implement
'pg_start_time' function that works in multi-user and stand-alone. Docs
is attached too.

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/

Attachment Content-Type Size
uptime6.diff application/octet-stream 5.6 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Neil Conway 2005-06-07 04:15:07 Re: lastval()
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2005-06-07 03:21:32 Re: Should *.backup files ever be removed from pg_xlog?