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