Re: [HACKERS] Forcing current WAL file to be archived

On Tue, Aug 15, 2006 at 06:07:12PM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-08-15 at 11:10 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > Simon Riggs wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > postgres=# select pg_xlogfile_name_offset(pg_switch_xlog());
> > > pg_xlogfile_name_offset
> > > -----------------------------------
> > > 000000010000000000000001 16777216
> > > (1 row)
> >
> > > I've not taken up Jim Nasby's suggestion to make this an SRF with
> > > multiple return rows/columns since that much complexity isn't justified
> > > IMHO.
> >
> > Hum, but two columns here seem warranted, don't they?
>
> Maybe. People can write any function they like though, so I'm loathe to
> agonize over this too much.

True, but making people parse the output of a function to seperate the
two fields seems pretty silly. Is there some reason why
pg_xlogfile_name_offset shouldn't be a SRF, or use two out parameters?
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461