On 14 May 2012 20:05, Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> wrote: > 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.
That's how it works now. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
