On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 12:40 PM, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 one question; why do we call the column "conn_info" instead of "conninfo" which is basically used in other places? "conninfo" is better to me. Regards, -- Fujii Masao -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
