| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Ensure age() returns a stable value rather than the latest value |
| Date: | 2012-05-14 19:56:41 |
| Message-ID: | 1337025401.19946.6.camel@vanquo.pezone.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
On mån, 2012-05-14 at 15:11 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Hm. Interesting argument, but why exactly would you expect that age()
> would work differently from, say, wall clock time? And how likely is
> it that a database that requires monitoring is going to have exactly
> zero transactions over a significant length of time?
Yes, it will be a marginal case in practice, but it's something that a
curious DBA might wonder about. But I think your example how age()
behaves relative to an INSERT statement is more important.
>
> (In any case, my primary beef at the moment is not with whether it's a
> good idea to change age()'s behavior going forward, but rather with
> having back-patched such a change.)
Certainly we should leave it alone there.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2012-05-14 20:04:53 | pgsql: Remove unused AC_DEFINE symbols |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-05-14 19:11:44 | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Ensure age() returns a stable value rather than the latest value |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2012-05-14 21:28:44 | Re: Draft release notes complete |
| Previous Message | Jeff Janes | 2012-05-14 19:29:19 | Re: Draft release notes complete |