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. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
