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

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

From: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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 02:06:01
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
* Robert Haas (robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
> Well, IMHO, there is no need for any syntax change at all.  CREATE
> TABLE and CREATE DATABASE should just record the creation time
> somewhere, and that's all.  If you dump-and-reload, the creation time
> changes.  Deal with it, or hack your catalogs if you really care that
> much.

I'd be alright with this also, tbh.  Not preserving such information
across pg_dump's wouldn't really be all *that* much of a loss.

As for hacking at the catalogs, I do find that a rather terrible
recommendation, ever.  I'm currently trying to convince people at $work
that hacking at pg_database to modify datallowconns is really not a
good or ideal solution (and requires a lot more people to have
superuser rights than really should, which is practically no one, imo).
Annoyingly, we don't seem to have a way to ALTER DATABASE to set that
value, although I *think* 'connection limit = 0' might be good enough.

> I find the suggestion of using event triggers for this to miss the
> point almost completely.  At least in my case, the time when you
> really wish you had some timestamps is when you get dropped into a
> customer environment and need to do forensics.  The customer will not
> have installed the convenient package of event triggers at database
> bootstrap time.  Their environment will likely be poorly configured
> and completely undocumented; that's why you're doing forensics, isn't
> it?

Exactly, that's what I was trying to get at upstream.

> 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.




In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Stephen FrostDate: 2013-01-03 02:12:06
Subject: Re: Proposal: Store "timestamptz" of database creation on "pg_database"
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2013-01-03 02:02:09
Subject: Re: Proposal: Store "timestamptz" of database creation on "pg_database"

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group