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

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

From: Fabrízio de Royes Mello <fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)gmail(dot)com>, Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Re: Proposal: Store "timestamptz" of database creation on "pg_database"
Date: 2013-01-05 15:48:40
Message-ID: CAFcNs+p1+sPcB_fmFDtZemnpifP-Vmz2vRB41a4pySfGKTL8mg@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 4:07 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:

> On 1/3/13 3:26 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> > It's true, as we've often
> > said here, that leveraging the OS facilities means that we get the
> > benefit of improving OS facilities "for free" - but it also means that
> > we never exceed what the OS facilities are able to provide.
>
> And that should be the deciding factor, shouldn't it?  Clearly, the OS
> timestamps do not satisfy the requirements of tracking database object
> creation times.
>
>
+1

And IMHO we must decide what we do or if we'll don't anything.

In this thread was discussed many ways to how to implement and how not
implement, so I compile some important points discussed before (sorry if I
forgot something):

* the original proposal was just to add a column in shared catalog
'pg_database' to track creation time (I already sent a patch [1]), but the
discussion going to implement a way to track creation time off all database
objects

* some people said if we implement that then we must have some way to alter
creation times by SQL (ALTER cmds) and also have a way to dump and restore
this info by pg_dump/pg_restore. Some agreed and others disagree.

* we talk about implement it with EventTriggers, but they not cover shared
objects (like databases, roles, tablespaces,...), and someone talked to
extend EventTriggers to cover this kind of objects or maybe we have a way
to create *shared tables* (this is what I understood). This way force to
every people implement your own track time system or maybe someone share a
extension to do that.

* also we discuss about create two new catalogs, one local and another
shared (like pg_description and pg_shdescription) to track creation times
of all database objects.

Please fix if I forgot something. Anyway, we must decide what to do.

I don't know enough, but I have another idea. What you guys think about we
have tables like "stats tables" to track creation times, with a GUC to
enable or disable this behavior.


Regards,


[1] http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2013-01/msg00111.php

-- 
Fabrízio de Royes Mello
Consultoria/Coaching PostgreSQL
>> Blog sobre TI: http://fabriziomello.blogspot.com
>> Perfil Linkedin: http://br.linkedin.com/in/fabriziomello
>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/fabriziomello

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Magnus HaganderDate: 2013-01-05 15:58:01
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Make pg_basebackup configure and start standby [Review]
Previous:From: Magnus HaganderDate: 2013-01-05 14:41:57
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Make pg_basebackup configure and start standby [Review]

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