On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 6:11 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> The protocol supports sending two values, so two are displayed. >> >> If you wish to remove one from the display then that only makes sense >> if you also prevent the protocol from supporting two values. >> >> There is no benefit in doing that, so why do it? We are going to put >> that back in 9.2 if you remove it now. Why not leave it, so we don't >> need to rewrite all the monitoring tools that will use this view?
What are you planning to use write_location for? BTW, I'm thinking to add recv_location (not write_location) in 9.2 to support another sync rep mode which makes transactions wait until the standby has received (not fsync'd) the WAL. You're planning the same? > If we're going to put it back in 9.2, then we shouldn't remove it now. > We should just make it work. It's a three line patch. If 9.2 is > going to meaningfully distinguish between write location and flush > location, then we may as well do the same thing in 9.1. Then we'll be > ahead of the game: not only will the view have the same columns in > both releases, but they'll actually have the same semantics in both > releases. +1 Regards, -- Fujii Masao NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
