Sorry for the top post. Sounds reasonable to me. Cannot look closely until Tuesday or so.
Joe On September 17, 2017 11:29:32 PM PDT, 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? > > >> > postgres[14388][1]=# SELECT pg_is_in_recovery(); >> > ┌───────────────────┐ >> > │ pg_is_in_recovery │ >> > ├───────────────────┤ >> > │ f │ >> > └───────────────────┘ >> > (1 row) >> >> But not this, since it is a boolean and the answer is known. > >Oh, that was just for reference, to show that the cluster isn't in >recovery... > > >- Andres -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
