Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> writes: > On lör, 2012-05-12 at 12:59 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> Now it's entirely likely that there is nobody out there relying on >> such a thing, but nonetheless this is a compatibility break, and an >> unnecessary one IMO. You haven't shown any convincing reason why we >> need to change the behavior of age() on master servers at all.
> Recall that this thread originally arose out of age() being called by a > monitoring tool. It would be nice if repeatedly calling age() on an > otherwise idle database would not change the result. Currently, you > would never get a "stable" state on such a check, and moreover, you > would not only get different results but different long-term behavior > between master and standby. 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? (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.) regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers