On Wed, Aug 07, 2024 at 06:00:45PM +0300, Aleksander Alekseev wrote: > Assuming the function has value, as you claim, I see no reason not to > expose it similarly to pg_current_wal_*(). On top of that you will > have to test-cover it anyway. The easiest way to do it will be to have > an SQL-wrapper.
I cannot be absolutely without seeing a patch, but adding SQL functions in this area is usually very useful for monitoring purposes of external solutions. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
