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 what pg_controldata outputs.
> I think that's
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 goal.
> So if we mak
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:
>
> # pg_controldata
> ...
> Minimum rec
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 underlying values for
> >> > p
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:
>> > postgres[14388][
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
>wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > Just noticed t
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
>> > pg_control_recovery() without any checks:
>> > postgr
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 pg_control_recovery();
> > ┌──
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();
> ┌──┬───┬──
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_recover
10 matches
Mail list logo