"Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Should we ask users if anyone is currently doing this? It seems pretty
> ugly to have most functions return the last used WAL byte with only
> stop_backup returning the first unused byte.
No, you misunderstood. All the functions that return WAL locatio
On Sat, Aug 05, 2006 at 11:59:40PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
> > Rather than expecting user-level scripts to get this corner case
> > right, I suggest that we ought to modify pg_stop_backup and friends
> > so that what they return is the last used byte address of WAL, not
> > the first unus
Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, 2006-08-05 at 23:59 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> After further thought I desisted from that plan: changing the result
>> convention of existing functions like pg_stop_backup() will break any
>> existing archiving scripts that do get it right. Instead,
On Sat, 2006-08-05 at 23:59 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
> > Rather than expecting user-level scripts to get this corner case
> > right, I suggest that we ought to modify pg_stop_backup and friends
> > so that what they return is the last used byte address of WAL, not
> > the first unused byte
I wrote:
> Rather than expecting user-level scripts to get this corner case
> right, I suggest that we ought to modify pg_stop_backup and friends
> so that what they return is the last used byte address of WAL, not
> the first unused byte address as now. Then, blindly extracting
> the filename wil
I'm noticing that if the current XLOG offset is exactly at a segment
boundary (ie, the last wal record just filled the segment) then the
various user-level functions return offsets that could be interpreted
as the start of the next segment, eg
regression=# select pg_switch_xlog();
pg_switch_xlog
