Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Proposal: Store "timestamptz" of database creation on "pg_database"

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Proposal: Store "timestamptz" of database creation on "pg_database"
Date: 2013-01-03 02:02:09
Message-ID: 3235.1357178529@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> [ on creation timestamps ]
> I know this has been discussed and rejected before, but I find that
> rejection to be wrong-headed.  I have repeatedly been asked, with
> levels of exasperation ranging from mild to homicidal, why we don't
> have this feature, and I have no good answer.  If it were somehow
> difficult to record this or likely to produce a lot of overhead, that
> would be one thing.  But it isn't.  It's probably a hundred-line
> patch, and AFAICS the overhead would be miniscule.

If I believed that it would be a hundred-line patch, and would *stay*
a hundred-line patch, I'd be fine with it.  But it won't.  I will
bet a very fine dinner that the feature wouldn't get out the door
before there would be demands for pg_dump support.  And arguments
about whether ALTER should or should not change the timestamp.
And I doubt you counted psql \d support in that hundred lines.
So this is just a can of worms that I'd rather not open.

			regards, tom lane


In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Stephen FrostDate: 2013-01-03 02:06:01
Subject: Re: Proposal: Store "timestamptz" of database creation on "pg_database"
Previous:From: Stephen FrostDate: 2013-01-03 02:01:48
Subject: Re: Re: Proposal: Store "timestamptz" of database creation on "pg_database"

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group