On Sun, Feb 6, 2022 at 7:45 AM Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > For what it's worth, I am generally in favor of having something like > this in PostgreSQL. I think it's wrong of us to continue assuming that > everyone has command-line access. Even when that's true, it's not > necessarily convenient. If you choose to use a relational database, > you may be the sort of person who likes SQL. And if you are, you may > want to have the database tell you what's going on via SQL rather than > command-line tools or operating system utilities. Imagine if we didn't > have pg_stat_activity and you had to get that information by running a > separate binary. Would anyone like that? Why is this case any > different?
+1. An SQL interface is significantly easier to work with. Especially because it can use the built-in LSN type, pg_lsn. I don't find the slippery slope argument convincing. There aren't that many other things that are like pg_waldump, but haven't already been exposed via an SQL interface. Offhand, I can't think of any. -- Peter Geoghegan
