| 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: | 2016-06-30 23:50:38 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqQBePNnT2LjJ1b63WU7A8UWH3aSdO88VLCv07ww9oof=g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 8:48 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Michael Paquier wrote:
>> Yeah, I know. Now my opinion regarding this view is that we should
>> show information about a currently-working WAL receiver, and that it
>> has nothing to do with reporting information of its previous startup state.
>> That's more consistent with the WAL sender.
>
> 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.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Marko Tiikkaja | 2016-07-01 00:12:56 | Allow INSTEAD OF DELETE triggers to modify the tuple for RETURNING |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2016-06-30 23:48:45 | Re: primary_conninfo missing from pg_stat_wal_receiver |