Re: [HACKERS] pg_control_recovery() return value when not in recovery

2017-10-14 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Haas writes: > On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 7:31 PM, Joe Conway wrote: >> 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

Re: [HACKERS] pg_control_recovery() return value when not in recovery

2017-10-14 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 7:31 PM, Joe Conway wrote: > 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. I think that's a good

Re: [HACKERS] pg_control_recovery() return value when not in recovery

2017-10-14 Thread Michael Paquier
On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 8:31 AM, Joe Conway wrote: > 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: > > #

Re: [HACKERS] pg_control_recovery() return value when not in recovery

2017-10-13 Thread Andres Freund
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 wrote: > >> > Hi, > >> > > >> > Just noticed that we're returning the

Re: [HACKERS] pg_control_recovery() return value when not in recovery

2017-10-13 Thread Joe Conway
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 wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > Just noticed that we're returning the underlying values for >> > pg_control_recovery() without any checks:

Re: [HACKERS] pg_control_recovery() return value when not in recovery

2017-09-18 Thread Joe Conway
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 wrote: >On 2017-09-18 07:24:43 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: >> On 18 September 2017 at 05:50, Andres Freund

Re: [HACKERS] pg_control_recovery() return value when not in recovery

2017-09-18 Thread Michael Paquier
On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 3:29 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2017-09-18 07:24:43 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: >> On 18 September 2017 at 05:50, Andres Freund wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > Just noticed that we're returning the underlying values for >> >

Re: [HACKERS] pg_control_recovery() return value when not in recovery

2017-09-18 Thread Andres Freund
On 2017-09-18 07:24:43 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 18 September 2017 at 05:50, Andres Freund wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Just noticed that we're returning the underlying values for > > pg_control_recovery() without any checks: > > postgres[14388][1]=# SELECT * FROM

Re: [HACKERS] pg_control_recovery() return value when not in recovery

2017-09-18 Thread Simon Riggs
On 18 September 2017 at 05:50, Andres Freund 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(); >

[HACKERS] pg_control_recovery() return value when not in recovery

2017-09-17 Thread Andres Freund
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(); ┌──┬───┬──┬┬───┐ │