Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> writes:
> The point is that the test does not have a
> one-second window of showing the wrong answer, meaning I could wait for
> 60 seconds, and still see the wrong WAL file at the top.
Oh, I see your point: you can lose at most one second's worth of data,
but that second could be arbitrarily long ago if it was the latest
activity in the database. Yeah, that's a bit unpleasant. So we really
do need both parts of the ordering rule, and there seems no way to do
that with just 'ls'.
I wonder if you could do anything with find(1)'s -newer switch?
It seems to be a '>' condition not a '>=' condition, so it'd be
pretty awkward ... certainly not a one-liner.
I think everyone agrees that adding a SQL function would be a reasonable
thing to do, anyway.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
