Re: [REVIEW] pg_last_xact_insert_timestamp
От | Fujii Masao |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [REVIEW] pg_last_xact_insert_timestamp |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAHGQGwG4xFZjfyzaBn5v__d3qpyNNsGBpH3nAr6p40eLivkW5w@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [REVIEW] pg_last_xact_insert_timestamp (Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [REVIEW] pg_last_xact_insert_timestamp
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 6:31 PM, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote: >> Also, in pg_last_xact_insert_timestamp, the errhint() seems a little >> strange - this is not exactly a WAL *control* function, is it? > > Not only "control" but also "WAL" might be confusing. What about > "transaction information functions"? Attached is the updated version of the patch. In the patch, I used the function name itself in the HINT message, i.e., the HINT message is the following. pg_last_xact_insert_timestamp() cannot be executed during recovery. >> In the documentation, for the short description of >> pg_last_xact_insert_timestamp(), how about something like "returns the >> time at which a transaction commit or transaction about record was >> last inserted into the transaction log"? Or maybe that's too long. >> But the current description doesn't seem to do much other than >> recapitulate the function name, so I'm wondering if we can do any >> better than that. > > Agreed. I will change the description per your suggestion. Done. >> I think that instead of hacking up the backend-status copying code to >> have a mode where it copies everything, you should just have a >> special-purpose function that computes the value you need directly off >> the backend status entries themselves. This approach seems like it >> both clutters the code and adds lots of extra data copying. > > Agreed. Will change. Done. Regards, -- Fujii Masao NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: