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. Now this is not that important and can be accommodated in the respective tools, but it is kind of weird. It would be like a check for disk space losing one byte at every check, even if you got it back later. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
