| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Robins Tharakan <tharakan(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Add pg_accept_connections_start_time() for better uptime calculation |
| Date: | 2025-02-17 03:05:28 |
| Message-ID: | Z7KneI9uXtc5NIJi@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Feb 16, 2025 at 07:53:06PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Yeah. Making that happen would require extending the contents of
> postmaster.pid, which is likely to break assorted peoples' tooling.
> I doubt that this feature clears the bar for justifying that.
Sure, agreed to not touch postmaster.pid.
Now my point is also that I would not object to a patch that wants to
show the information of postmaster.pid in a nicer way than it is now
through SQL, as one tuple with one attribute per field written, or
something like a JSON object. With the format of postmaster.pid being
very stable across releases, perhaps one attribute per field is
better.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amul Sul | 2025-02-17 04:05:56 | Re: NOT ENFORCED constraint feature |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2025-02-17 03:00:58 | Re: Add Postgres module info |