Re: Should pg_current_wal_location() become pg_current_wal_lsn()

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>
Cc: David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Euler Taveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com(dot)br>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Should pg_current_wal_location() become pg_current_wal_lsn()
Date: 2017-05-06 06:09:22
Message-ID: 29141.1494050962@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, May 05, 2017 at 03:36:39AM +1200, David Rowley wrote:
>> Do any of the committers who voted for this change feel inclined to
>> pick this patch up?

> I'll echo that question. This open item lacks a clear owner. One might argue
> that 806091c caused it by doing the backward-compatibility breaks that
> inspired this patch, but that's a link too tenuous to create ownership.

If no one else takes this, I will pick it up --- but I don't anticipate
having any time for it until after Monday's back-branch release wraps.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Fabien COELHO 2017-05-06 08:42:04 "CURRENT_ROLE" is not documented
Previous Message Noah Misch 2017-05-06 05:48:23 Re: Should pg_current_wal_location() become pg_current_wal_lsn()