Euler Taveira de Oliveira wrote:
> Hi Bruce,
> > I think we are best with just pg_startime. If people want the
> > interval
> > they can subtract it from CURRENT_TIMESTAMP. I have added Matthias's
> > version to the patch queue.
> OK. But IIRC the Matthias implementation doesn't work in standalone
> mode. And talking about the 'interval', I think it's too ugly make
> select CURRENT_TIMESTAMP - pg_starttime();
> Isn't it more simple do this?
> select pg_uptime();
I think we should return intervals only when we can't return meaningful
timestamp values. I don't have any logic to back up that opinion, though.
> I think few people will use start_time and more people will use uptime
> that's why I propose the 'uptime' function.
We need to preceed our function names with pg_ for cases like this where
we are supplying pg-specific behavior.
> Talking abouts names, IMHO we need to go with uptime() and
> start_time(). Why? That's because a system function and it's about
> server. When we implement backend uptime, we can go with
> connection_uptime() and connection_start_time().
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
email@example.com | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?