Neil Conway wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > We need to preceed our function names with pg_ for cases like this where
> > we are supplying pg-specific behavior.
>
> We do? I'm not sure I can see much of a consistent naming convention for
> functions like these: version(), obj_description(), has_
Bruce Momjian wrote:
We need to preceed our function names with pg_ for cases like this where
we are supplying pg-specific behavior.
We do? I'm not sure I can see much of a consistent naming convention for
functions like these: version(), obj_description(), has_xyz_privilege(),
format_type(),
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
I think we agreed on pg_postmaster_start_time() so it is clear it is the
postmaster, and not the session.
Your patch has been added to the PostgreSQL unapplied patches list at:
http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches
It will be applied as soon as one of the PostgreSQL committers
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.
>
Bruce Momjian writes:
> 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.
It's easy: a value measured as an interval will be obsolete by the time
it's delivered to the client. A start timestamp is a
Euler Taveira de Oliveira wrote:
> Hi Bruce,
>
> >
> > I think we are best with just pg_startime. If people want the
> > interval
> > they can subtract it from CURRENT_TIMESTAMP. I have added Matthias's
> > version to the patch queue.
> >
> >
> OK. But IIRC the Matthias implementation doesn't
Hi Bruce,
>
> I think we are best with just pg_startime. If people want the
> interval
> they can subtract it from CURRENT_TIMESTAMP. I have added Matthias's
> version to the patch queue.
>
>
OK. But IIRC the Matthias implementation doesn't work in standalone
mode. And talking about the 'inte
I think we are best with just pg_startime. If people want the interval
they can subtract it from CURRENT_TIMESTAMP. I have added Matthias's
version to the patch queue.
---
Euler Taveira de Oliveira wrote:
>
> Bruce Momjia
This has been saved for the 8.1 release:
http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches2
---
Euler Taveira de Oliveira wrote:
>
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > This has been saved for the 8.1 release:
> >
> >
Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> This has been saved for the 8.1 release:
>
> http:/momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches2
>
>
---
>
Hi,
I redo this patch adding the funcionality that Matthias implemented
(starttime). B
This has been saved for the 8.1 release:
http:/momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches2
---
Euler Taveira de Oliveira wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> > > > This patch just implement a function that returns the uptime of
> >
Hi Alvaro,
>
> > Patch updated. I improved the function output too.
>
> Is it really a good idea to have a new file for only one function?
> We regularly see complaints about not wanting to do basic source code
> cleanup because not wanting to disrupt CVS history ...
>
I couldn't see a good pla
On Wed, Dec 22, 2004 at 12:57:34AM -0300, Euler Taveira de Oliveira wrote:
Hi,
> Patch updated. I improved the function output too.
Is it really a good idea to have a new file for only one function?
We regularly see complaints about not wanting to do basic source code
cleanup because not wanting
Hi,
> > > This patch just implement a function that returns the uptime of
> the
> > > postmaster.
> >
> > Doesn't work in EXEC_BACKEND case.
> >
> Sorry. I'll fix this.
>
Patch updated. I improved the function output too.
Comments?
=
Euler Taveira de Oliveira
euler[at]yahoo_com_br
___
Hi Tom,
> > This patch just implement a function that returns the uptime of the
> > postmaster.
>
> Doesn't work in EXEC_BACKEND case.
>
Sorry. I'll fix this.
=
Euler Taveira de Oliveira
euler[at]yahoo_com_br
Euler Taveira de Oliveira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This patch just implement a function that returns the uptime of the
> postmaster.
Doesn't work in EXEC_BACKEND case.
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 1: s
Hi,
This patch just implement a function that returns the uptime of the
postmaster. The docs are included too.
Another TODO item could be implement a function that returns the
startup time. If nobody objects I can do it.
Finally, I do not forbid non-superusers to execute it, but we can do
this if
18 matches
Mail list logo
