From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: pg_control_recovery() return value when not in recovery |
Date: | 2017-09-18 06:24:43 |
Message-ID: | CANP8+j+TnCBh7g+=dz+q0suXchReGgWA_Nc2ZWbayxxXucNAzA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 18 September 2017 at 05:50, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Just noticed that we're returning the underlying values for
> pg_control_recovery() without any checks:
> postgres[14388][1]=# SELECT * FROM pg_control_recovery();
> ┌──────────────────────┬───────────────────────────┬──────────────────┬────────────────┬───────────────────────────────┐
> │ min_recovery_end_lsn │ min_recovery_end_timeline │ backup_start_lsn │ backup_end_lsn │ end_of_backup_record_required │
> ├──────────────────────┼───────────────────────────┼──────────────────┼────────────────┼───────────────────────────────┤
> │ 0/0 │ 0 │ 0/0 │ 0/0 │ f │
> └──────────────────────┴───────────────────────────┴──────────────────┴────────────────┴───────────────────────────────┘
> (1 row)
Yes, that would have made sense for these to be NULL
> postgres[14388][1]=# SELECT pg_is_in_recovery();
> ┌───────────────────┐
> │ pg_is_in_recovery │
> ├───────────────────┤
> │ f │
> └───────────────────┘
> (1 row)
But not this, since it is a boolean and the answer is known.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2017-09-18 06:29:32 | Re: pg_control_recovery() return value when not in recovery |
Previous Message | MauMau | 2017-09-18 06:07:00 | Re: sync process names between ps and pg_stat_activity |