Re: Should pg_current_wal_location() become pg_current_wal_lsn()

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Euler Taveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com(dot)br>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Should pg_current_wal_location() become pg_current_wal_lsn()
Date: 2017-05-11 14:45:37
Message-ID: 19936.1494513937@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 9:15 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
>> On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 01:09:36PM -0700, Joe Conway wrote:
> On 05/10/2017 12:22 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Hm, well, anybody else want to vote?

>>> +1 for #2

>> Same, +1 for #2 (apply this patch)

> #1, do nothing.

OK, by my count we have

For patch:
Joe Conway
Stephen Frost
Kyotaro Horiguchi (*)
Petr Jelinek (*)
Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian
David Rowley
David Steele
Euler Taveira

For doing nothing:
Peter Eisentraut
Robert Haas
Michael Paquier

I think Kyotaro-san and Petr would have preferred standardizing
on "location" over "lsn", but they were definitely not for doing
nothing. With or without their votes, it's pretty clear that the
ayes have it.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2017-05-11 14:56:34 Re: Should pg_current_wal_location() become pg_current_wal_lsn()
Previous Message Stas Kelvich 2017-05-11 14:33:33 Re: snapbuild woes