On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 12:57 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 8:55 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 3:28 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
>>> On 11/9/10 5:44 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
But, pg_last_xact_replay_timestamp is more intuitive for many people?
If so, let's
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 8:55 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 3:28 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
>> On 11/9/10 5:44 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>>> But, pg_last_xact_replay_timestamp is more intuitive for many people?
>>> If so, let's change
>>> the name.
>>
>> *None* of these names are intuit
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 3:28 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 11/9/10 5:44 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> But, pg_last_xact_replay_timestamp is more intuitive for many people?
>> If so, let's change
>> the name.
>
> *None* of these names are intuitive. So let's just go for consistency.
OK. I changed the n
On 11/9/10 5:44 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> But, pg_last_xact_replay_timestamp is more intuitive for many people?
> If so, let's change
> the name.
*None* of these names are intuitive. So let's just go for consistency.
If you want an intuitive name, it would be:
pg_replication_log_timestamp()
--
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 1:05 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 6:00 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 9:58 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> This looks good, but how about adding:
>>>
>>> if (!RecoveryInProgress())
>>> PG_RETURN_NULL();
>>>
>>> Otherwise, if we're in Hot
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 6:00 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 9:58 AM, Robert Haas 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, wo
On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 9:58 AM, Robert Haas 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 tha
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 9:00 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 10:27 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 10:38 PM, Dimitri Fontaine
>> wrote:
>>> Fujii Masao writes:
After 9.0 release, I've often heard that some people want to know
how far transactions have b
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 10:27 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 10:38 PM, Dimitri Fontaine
> wrote:
>> Fujii Masao writes:
>>> After 9.0 release, I've often heard that some people want to know
>>> how far transactions have been replayed in the standby in timestamp
>>> rather than LS
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 10:38 PM, Dimitri Fontaine
wrote:
> Fujii Masao writes:
>> After 9.0 release, I've often heard that some people want to know
>> how far transactions have been replayed in the standby in timestamp
>> rather than LSN. So I'm thinking to include the function which returns
>> t
Fujii Masao writes:
> After 9.0 release, I've often heard that some people want to know
> how far transactions have been replayed in the standby in timestamp
> rather than LSN. So I'm thinking to include the function which returns
> the timestamp of the last applied transaction (i.e., commit/abort
11 matches
Mail list logo
