| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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 23:31:20 |
| Message-ID: | CA+U5nMK9=RerAzJceuSY2JNcUdreEq4W5qR2GpHKeqPNYObt-g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
On 14 May 2012 20:05, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> On lör, 2012-05-12 at 12:59 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Now it's entirely likely that there is nobody out there relying on
>> such a thing, but nonetheless this is a compatibility break, and an
>> unnecessary one IMO. You haven't shown any convincing reason why we
>> need to change the behavior of age() on master servers at all.
>
> Recall that this thread originally arose out of age() being called by a
> monitoring tool. It would be nice if repeatedly calling age() on an
> otherwise idle database would not change the result. Currently, you
> would never get a "stable" state on such a check, and moreover, you
> would not only get different results but different long-term behavior
> between master and standby.
That's how it works now.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-05-15 03:06:56 | pgsql: Put back AC_REQUIRE([AC_STRUCT_TM]). |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-05-14 20:12:47 | pgsql: Assert that WaitLatchOrSocket callers cannot wait only for writa |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gilles Darold | 2012-05-15 00:52:32 | Re: Patch pg_is_in_backup() |
| Previous Message | Merlin Moncure | 2012-05-14 21:28:44 | Re: Draft release notes complete |