On Tue, 2018-11-13 at 12:24 -0800, Andres Freund wrote: > Hi, > > On 2018-11-13 17:18:32 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > On 2018-Nov-13, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > > > > On 13/11/2018 18:53, Jean-Christophe Arnu wrote: > > > > May I request any update on my (not so important) proposal ? > > > > > > Other opinions out there perhaps? I think your proposals are > > > good, but > > > I'm not sure to what extent people are automatically parsing the > > > pg_waldump output and are relying on a particular fixed format. > > I personally don't care either way about this change. But: > > > While I've used pg_waldump a number of times to investigate various > > problems, I have never written a script that would be broken by the > > proposed changes. It seems the requirements vary every time. > > I'm not too concerned either. There's plenty change of the WAL > contents across versions anyway. We shouldn't break things > gratuitously, but we shouldn't hesitate to make the format better > either. > > If somebody really wanted something that parses reasonably across > versions I'd like to a) hear that usecase b) come up with an output > format that's oriented towards that. >
+1 to that I do process pg_waldump output quite often, and IMHO it's more valuable to produce consistently formatted output (for a given version) than try maintaining cross-version compatibility at all costs. regards -- Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
