On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 5:45 PM vignesh C <vignes...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, 21 Oct 2022 at 11:31, Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 09:23:38PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > > Hmmm ... I'd tend to do SELECT COUNT(*) FROM. But can't we provide > > > any actual checks on the sanity of the output? I realize that the > > > output's far from static, but still ... > > > > Honestly, checking all the fields is not that exciting, but the > > maximum I can think of that would be portable enough is something like > > the attached. No arithmetic operators for xid limits things a bit, > > but at least that's something. > > > > Thoughts? > > The patch does not apply on top of HEAD as in [1], please post a rebased > patch: >
Because of the extra WAL overhead, we are not continuing with the patch, I will withdraw it. -- Regards, Dilip Kumar EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
