On Monday, March 21, 2016, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 2:09 PM, David G. Johnston > <david.g.johns...@gmail.com <javascript:;>> wrote: > > On Monday, March 21, 2016, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us <javascript:;>> > wrote: > >> "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johns...@gmail.com <javascript:;>> writes: > >> > I'd rather not omit sleep but removing "Watch every" is fine > (preferred > >> > actually), so: > >> > Title Is Here Mon Mar 21 15:05:06 2016 (5s) > >> > >> Meh ... seems a bit awkward to me. Couldn't you include " (5s)" in the > >> title, if you want that info? If it's variable, you could still > >> accommodate that: > > > > Actually, only if it's a variable that you setup and repeat and you > show. A > > bit cumbersome and mixes the parts that are title and those that are > present > > only because you are watching. > > Ah, come on. This doesn't really seem like an issue we should spend > more time quibbling about. I think Tom's version is fine. > > Tom doesn't care enough to veto and you don't really care... I'll admit it's awkward because it's abbreviated but if someone enters \watch 5 and then sees (5s) in the title I think they can put two and two together. If the watched query takes a long to run, or there is a disruption, knowing when the last one ran and how often it is supposed to run is useful info to have at ones fingertips. I have done this myself occasionally so I'm not speaking from theory. But I won't complain if its removed. David J.
