Horton

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

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
Cc: Fabrízio de Royes Mello <fabriziomello@gmail.com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>, 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: 2013-01-08T15:08:29Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
> * Fabrízio de Royes Mello (fabriziomello@gmail.com) wrote:
>> * also we discuss about create two new catalogs, one local and another
>> shared (like pg_description and pg_shdescription) to track creation times
>> of all database objects.
>
> Creating a separate catalog (or two) every time we want to track XYZ for
> all objects is rather overkill...  Thinking about this a bit more, and
> noting that pg_description/shdescription more-or-less already exist as a
> framework for tracking 'something' for 'all catalog entries'- why don't
> we just add these columns to those tables..?  This would also address
> Peter's concern about making sure we do this 'wholesale' and in one
> release rather than spread across multiple releases- just make sure it
> covers the same set of things which 'comment' does.

I suspect that trying to shoehorn this into
pg_description/pg_shdescription will contort both features
unnecessarily, but I'm willing to be proven wrong.

> Also, I don't think we really need a GUC for this.

Indeed, a GUC would seem to me to defeat the entire point of the feature.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company