Re: uptime() for postmaster - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: uptime() for postmaster
Date
Msg-id 11438.1104520713@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to uptime() for postmaster  (Matthias Schmidt <schmidtm@mock-software.de>)
Responses Re: uptime() for postmaster
List pgsql-hackers
Matthias Schmidt <schmidtm@mock-software.de> writes:
> a) is the name uptime() OK?

Probably should use pg_uptime(), or something else starting with pg_.

> 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.

> 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.

> d) Can I piggy-back on 'BackendParameters' to get postmasters 
> start-time to the backends?

AFAICS you have no other choice.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Wildpaner
Date:
Subject: 'COPY ... FROM' inserts to btree, blocks on buffer writeout
Next
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: contrib regression on old versions