Re: primary_conninfo missing from pg_stat_wal_receiver

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Vik Fearing <vik(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: primary_conninfo missing from pg_stat_wal_receiver
Date: 2016-07-01 00:46:48
Message-ID: CAB7nPqR8WQh3W3UF_pzT3dDbcz4=OAjV4YXp3ZJbJFg93Ej9Fw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 8:50 AM, Michael Paquier
<michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 8:48 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> Michael Paquier wrote:
>>> Yeah, I know. Now my opinion regarding this view is that we should
>>> show information about a currently-working WAL receiver, and that it
>>> has nothing to do with reporting information of its previous startup state.
>>> That's more consistent with the WAL sender.
>>
>> Okay, that argument I buy.
>>
>> I suppose this function/view should report no row at all if there is no
>> wal receiver connected, rather than a view with nulls.
>
> The function returns PG_RETURN_NULL() so as we don't have to use a
> SRF, and the view checks for IS NOT NULL, so there would be no rows
> popping up.

In short, I would just go with the attached and call it a day.
--
Michael

Attachment Content-Type Size
wal-receiver-fix.patch text/x-diff 1.2 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Craig Ringer 2016-07-01 00:48:05 Re: initdb issue on 64-bit Windows - (Was: [pgsql-packagers] PG 9.6beta2 tarballs are ready)
Previous Message Tsunakawa, Takayuki 2016-07-01 00:33:11 Is a UDF binary portable across different minor releases and PostgreSQL distributions?