On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 8:39 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 7:23 PM, Michael Paquier > <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 5:27 AM, Gurjeet Singh wrote: >>> The function, maybe. But emitting an all-nulls row from a view seems >>> counter-intuitive, at least when looking at it in context of relational >>> database. >> >> OK, noted. Any other opinions? > > I wouldn't bother with the view. If we're going to do it, I'd say > just provide the function and let people SELECT * from it if they want > to.
OK, I took some time to write a patch for that as attached, added in the next CF here: https://commitfest.postgresql.org/8/447/ I am fine switching to an SRF depending on other opinions of people here, it just seems like an overkill knowing the uniqueness of the WAL sender in a server. I have finished with a function and a system view, this came up more in line with the existing things like pg_stat_archiver, and this makes as well the documentation clearer, at least that was my feeling when hacking that. Regards, -- Michael
0001-Add-system-view-and-function-to-report-WAL-receiver-.patch
Description: binary/octet-stream
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
