Re: uptime function to postmaster

Euler Taveira de Oliveira wrote:
> 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.

I have applied the attached patch, calling the function
pg_postmaster_start_time(). I realize a stand-alone backend doesn't
have a postmaster, but this is probably as clear as we are going to get.

Do we want this to be executed only by super-users? I know there was
some discussion about that but I didn't see a conclusion. The only
argument I heard was something about random seeds, but that seemed like
a weak argument.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073