On mån, 2012-05-14 at 15:11 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Hm. Interesting argument, but why exactly would you expect that age()
> would work differently from, say, wall clock time? And how likely is
> it that a database that requires monitoring is going to have exactly
> zero transactions over a significant length of time?
Yes, it will be a marginal case in practice, but it's something that a
curious DBA might wonder about. But I think your example how age()
behaves relative to an INSERT statement is more important.
>
> (In any case, my primary beef at the moment is not with whether it's a
> good idea to change age()'s behavior going forward, but rather with
> having back-patched such a change.)
Certainly we should leave it alone there.
