On 2017-10-13 16:31:37 -0700, Joe Conway wrote: > On 09/17/2017 11:29 PM, Andres Freund 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? > > Sorry for the slow response, but thinking back on this now, the idea of > these functions, in my mind at least, was to provide as close to the > same output as possible to what pg_controldata outputs. So: > > # pg_controldata > ... > Minimum recovery ending location: 0/0 > Min recovery ending loc's timeline: 0 > Backup start location: 0/0 > Backup end location: 0/0 > End-of-backup record required: no > ... > > So if we make a change here, do we also change pg_controldata?
I'm unconvince that they need to be kept that close. For one, text output doesn't have the concept of NULLs. Secondly, pg_controldata output also the cluster state at the same time. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
