Re: [HACKERS] Should pg_current_wal_location() become pg_current_wal_lsn()

On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 9:15 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 01:09:36PM -0700, Joe Conway wrote:
>> On 05/10/2017 12:22 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> > Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> >> On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 1:13 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> >>> In terms of the alternatives I listed previously, it seems like
>> >>> nobody liked alternatives #3, #4, or #5, leaving us with #1 (do
>> >>> nothing) or #2 (apply this patch).  By my count, Peter is the
>> >>> only one in favor of doing nothing, and is outvoted.  I'll push
>> >>> the patch later today if I don't hear additional comments.
>> >
>> >> For the record, I also voted for doing nothing.
>> >
>> > Hm, well, anybody else want to vote?
>>
>> +1 for #2
>
> Same, +1 for #2 (apply this patch)

#1, do nothing.
-- 
Michael