Re: [PATCHES] Forcing current WAL file to be archived

On Aug 10, 2006, at 7:57 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Anyway, after further thought I've concluded that we really should
> supply something that returns the Insert pointer, as this would be
> useful for debugging and system-monitoring purposes.  It's clear
> however
> that we also need something that returns the Write pointer, as that's
> what's needed for partial log-shipping.  So my vote is for two
> functions, both read-only (and hence not superuser-only).  Not sure
> what to name them exactly.

Dumb question... is there any need to be able to get those values in
sync (I'm assuming that in the time taken to call two separate
functions the value on the second function called could change from
what it was when the first function was called)? Should there be a
SRF that returns both values?
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant      jnasby@pervasive.com
Pervasive Software      http://pervasive.com    work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf       cell: 512-569-9461