Horton

Re: Re: Proposal: Store "timestamptz" of database creation on "pg_database"

Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
To: Fabrízio de Royes Mello <fabriziomello@gmail.com>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Christopher Browne <cbbrowne@gmail.com>, Hannu Krosing <hannu@2ndquadrant.com>, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri@2ndquadrant.fr>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2013-01-05T19:31:53Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
* Fabrízio de Royes Mello (fabriziomello@gmail.com) wrote:
> But those tables are filled only when we execute COMMENT ON statement...
> then your idea is create a 'null' comment every time we create a single
> object... is it?

Yes, and have the actual 'description' field (as it's variable) at the
end of the catalog.

Regarding the semantics of it- I was thinking about how directories and
unix files work.  Basically, adding or removing a sub-object would
update the alter time on the object itself, changing an already existing
object or sub-object would update only the object/sub-object's alter
time.  Creating an object or sub/object would set its create time and
alter time to the same value.  I would distinguish 'create' from
'ctime', however, and have our 'create' time be only the actual
*creation* time of the object.  ALTER table OWNER TO user; would update
"table"s alter time.

Open to other thoughts on this and perhaps we should create a wiki page
to start documentating the semantics.  Once we get agreement there, it's
just a bit of code. :)

	Thanks,

		Stephen