Hi Tom,
Am 31.12.2004 um 20:18 schrieb Tom Lane:
Matthias Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:a) is the name uptime() OK?
Probably should use pg_uptime(), or something else starting with pg_.
What about 'pg_starttime()' since it is not a period but a point-in-time?
b) is the return-type 'Interval' OK?
It might be better to return the actual postmaster start time (as timestamptz) and let the user do whatever arithmetic he wants. With an interval, there's immediately a question of interpretation --- what current timestamp did you use in the computation? I'm not dead set on this, but it feels cleaner.
you're right. Let's go for timestamptz and let the users decide ...
c) does it make sense (... fit in the scheme?) to place the code here: src/backend/utils/misc/uptime.c
No. This sort of stuff should go into utils/adt/. I'd be inclined to drop the function into one of the existing timestamp-related files rather than make a whole new file just for it. Someplace near the now() function would make sense, for instance.
yep - so the stuff goes to: utils/adt/timestamp.c, where now() and many other time-related functions are.
d) Can I piggy-back on 'BackendParameters' to get postmasters start-time to the backends?
AFAICS you have no other choice.
regards, tom lane
cheers,
Matthias
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Matthias Schmidt Viehtriftstr. 49
67346 Speyer
Tel.: +49 6232 4867 Fax.: +49 6232 640089
---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
