| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Vik Fearing <vik(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: primary_conninfo missing from pg_stat_wal_receiver |
| Date: | 2016-07-04 03:40:44 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqQpmCAbLuRF0jX6hWDHzoQW43Mm+KzP-NOj5V1E_qqUUA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 2:56 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 8:50 AM, Michael Paquier
>> <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> >> Okay, that argument I buy.
>> >>
>> >> I suppose this function/view should report no row at all if there is no
>> >> wal receiver connected, rather than a view with nulls.
>> >
>> > The function returns PG_RETURN_NULL() so as we don't have to use a
>> > SRF, and the view checks for IS NOT NULL, so there would be no rows
>> > popping up.
>>
>> In short, I would just go with the attached and call it a day.
>
> Done, thanks.
Thanks. I have noticed that the item was still in CLOSE_WAIT, so I
have moved it to the section of resolved items.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2016-07-04 03:51:54 | Re: to_date_valid() |
| Previous Message | Gavin Flower | 2016-07-04 03:39:22 | Re: to_date_valid() |