Re: primary_conninfo missing from pg_stat_wal_receiver
От | Fujii Masao |
---|---|
Тема | Re: primary_conninfo missing from pg_stat_wal_receiver |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAHGQGwFDTKXOu8Uz37VmfjguTy_cowMcZtnV1hkfw1DaN+BoAw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: primary_conninfo missing from pg_stat_wal_receiver (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: primary_conninfo missing from pg_stat_wal_receiver
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 12:40 PM, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 2:56 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> Michael Paquier wrote: >>> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 8:50 AM, Michael Paquier >>> <michael.paquier@gmail.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 one question; why do we call the column "conn_info" instead of "conninfo" which is basically used in other places? "conninfo" is better to me. Regards, -- Fujii Masao
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: