On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 8:48 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> Michael Paquier wrote:
>> Yeah, I know. Now my opinion regarding this view is that we should
>> show information about a currently-working WAL receiver, and that it
>> has nothing to do with reporting information of its previous startup state.
>> That's more consistent with the WAL sender.
> 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.

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to