Horton

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

Fabrízio de Royes Mello <fabriziomello@gmail.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Fabrízio de Royes Mello <fabriziomello@gmail.com>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
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: 2013-01-07T00:54:48Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
* Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
>
> 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.
>

Understood... a "COMMENT" is a database object, then if we add a creation
time column to pg_description/shdescription tables how we track his
creation 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. :)
>

+1

Regards,

--
Fabrízio de Royes Mello
Consultoria/Coaching PostgreSQL
>> Blog sobre TI: http://fabriziomello.blogspot.com
>> Perfil Linkedin: http://br.linkedin.com/in/fabriziomello
>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/fabriziomello