| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)gmail(dot)com>, Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Re: Proposal: Store "timestamptz" of database creation on "pg_database" |
| Date: | 2013-01-08 13:47:27 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmobRNXtSPMp2kdgeuacT8NS22mH4eh9_AJ2a0zEeAo_S5Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> On 1/3/13 3:26 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> It's true, as we've often
>> said here, that leveraging the OS facilities means that we get the
>> benefit of improving OS facilities "for free" - but it also means that
>> we never exceed what the OS facilities are able to provide.
>
> And that should be the deciding factor, shouldn't it? Clearly, the OS
> timestamps do not satisfy the requirements of tracking database object
> creation times.
Yes, I think so.
But I am not entirely sold on tracking the creation time of every SQL
object. It might be all right, but what about catalog bloat?
I am on board for databases, and for tables, at any rate.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kohei KaiGai | 2013-01-08 13:58:42 | Re: recent ALTER whatever .. SET SCHEMA refactoring |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2013-01-08 13:20:42 | Re: Improve compression speeds in pg_lzcompress.c |