| From: | Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: postgres uptime |
| Date: | 2004-08-20 08:15:40 |
| Message-ID: | 4125B32C.4080406@archonet.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
>
>>Does anyone have any 'benefits' to implementing such a thing that we can
>>list? The cons appear to be easy, what about pros?
>
>
> That's exactly what's bugging me --- I have not seen any particularly
> strong defense of why we *should* have this function.
>
> Your suggestion in another mail of restricting it to superusers would
> eliminate most or all of the security gripes I'm raising. Whether that
> still leaves it useful to the original suggestor's purpose, I dunno...
If you had a pressing need, couldn't you just hack the startup script(s)
to insert a timestamp in a suitable table?
Or am I missing something here (as usual)?
--
Richard Huxton
Archonet Ltd
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Philip Warner | 2004-08-20 08:34:53 | Re: tablespace and sequences? |
| Previous Message | Fabien COELHO | 2004-08-20 08:14:22 | Re: tablespace and sequences? |