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 > this: > 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 pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (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? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
