On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 6:00 AM, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 9:58 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> This looks good, but how about adding: >> >> if (!RecoveryInProgress()) >> PG_RETURN_NULL(); >> >> Otherwise, if we're in Hot Standby mode for a while and then enter >> normal running, wouldn't this still return a (stale) value? > > Yes, but isn't that (stale) value useful to check how far WAL records > have been replayed, *after failover*?
Oh, OK. I guess that makes sense. One other question - should we say pg_last_xact_replay_timestamp() rather than pg_xact_last_replay_timestamp(), for consistency with pg_last_xlog_replay_location()? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
