| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> |
| Cc: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Tracking last scan time |
| Date: | 2022-09-01 12:03:59 |
| Message-ID: | YxCfr+f0sDIZUUe4@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Sep 1, 2022 at 09:46:59AM +0100, Dave Page wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 at 17:13, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> Wow. I was just thinking you need second-level accuracy, which must be
> cheap somewhere.
>
>
> Second-level accuracy would indeed be fine for this. Frankly, for my use case
> just the date would be enough, but I can imagine people wanting greater
> accuracy than that.
>
> And yes, I was very surprised by the timing results I got as well. I guess it's
> a quirk of macOS - on a Linux box I get ~4s for gettimeofday() and ~1s for time
> ().
i think we lose 95% of our users if we require it to be enabled so let's
work to find a way it can be always enabled.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com
Indecision is a decision. Inaction is an action. Mark Batterson
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bharath Rupireddy | 2022-09-01 12:11:44 | Proposal: Allow walsenders to send WAL directly from wal_buffers to replicas |
| Previous Message | Polina Bungina | 2022-09-01 11:58:04 | Re: pg_rewind WAL segments deletion pitfall |