On 11/2/21, 10:29 AM, "Jeff Davis" <pg...@j-davis.com> wrote:
> Great idea! Patch attached.
>
> This feels like a good pattern that we might want to use elsewhere, if
> the need arises.
The approach in the patch looks alright to me, but another one could
be to build a SelectStmt when parsing CHECKPOINT. I think that'd
simplify the standard_ProcessUtility() changes.
Otherwise, I see a couple of warnings when compiling:
xlogfuncs.c:54: warning: implicit declaration of function
‘RequestCheckpoint’
xlogfuncs.c:56: warning: control reaches end of non-void function
Nathan
