On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 2:56 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > Michael Paquier wrote: >> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 8:50 AM, Michael Paquier >> <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> 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. >> >> In short, I would just go with the attached and call it a day. > > Done, thanks.
Thanks. I have noticed that the item was still in CLOSE_WAIT, so I have moved it to the section of resolved items. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
