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.

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

Reply via email to