On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 3:29 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > On 2017-09-18 07:24:43 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: >> On 18 September 2017 at 05:50, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > Just noticed that we're returning the underlying values for >> > pg_control_recovery() without any checks: >> > postgres[14388][1]=# SELECT * FROM pg_control_recovery(); >> > ┌──────────────────────┬───────────────────────────┬──────────────────┬────────────────┬───────────────────────────────┐ >> > │ min_recovery_end_lsn │ min_recovery_end_timeline │ backup_start_lsn │ >> > backup_end_lsn │ end_of_backup_record_required │ >> > ├──────────────────────┼───────────────────────────┼──────────────────┼────────────────┼───────────────────────────────┤ >> > │ 0/0 │ 0 │ 0/0 │ >> > 0/0 │ f │ >> > └──────────────────────┴───────────────────────────┴──────────────────┴────────────────┴───────────────────────────────┘ >> > (1 row) >> >> Yes, that would have made sense for these to be NULL > > Yea, that's what I think was well. Joe, IIRC that's your code, do you > agree as well?
+1 for NULLness here. That was a point not covered during the review of the feature. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
