From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: pg_control_recovery() return value when not in recovery |
Date: | 2017-09-18 06:33:39 |
Message-ID: | CAB7nPqS57EG72dxVZuoHz09Hdk+a6EZXmfXmzmG0p2YpO1oKWA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 3:29 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> On 2017-09-18 07:24:43 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> On 18 September 2017 at 05:50, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> 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();
>> > ┌──────────────────────┬───────────────────────────┬──────────────────┬────────────────┬───────────────────────────────┐
>> > │ min_recovery_end_lsn │ min_recovery_end_timeline │ backup_start_lsn │ backup_end_lsn │ end_of_backup_record_required │
>> > ├──────────────────────┼───────────────────────────┼──────────────────┼────────────────┼───────────────────────────────┤
>> > │ 0/0 │ 0 │ 0/0 │ 0/0 │ f │
>> > └──────────────────────┴───────────────────────────┴──────────────────┴────────────────┴───────────────────────────────┘
>> > (1 row)
>>
>> Yes, that would have made sense for these to be NULL
>
> Yea, that's what I think was well. Joe, IIRC that's your code, do you
> agree as well?
+1 for NULLness here. That was a point not covered during the review
of the feature.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jeevan Chalke | 2017-09-18 07:07:46 | Re: Partition-wise aggregation/grouping |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2017-09-18 06:29:32 | Re: pg_control_recovery() return value when not in recovery |