Re: [HACKERS] Patch to implement pg_current_logfile() function - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Karl O. Pinc
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Patch to implement pg_current_logfile() function
Date
Msg-id 20170118110823.1d9ac005@slate.meme.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Patch to implement pg_current_logfile() function  (Christoph Berg <myon@debian.org>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Patch to implement pg_current_logfile() function  ("Karl O. Pinc" <kop@meme.com>)
Re: [HACKERS] Patch to implement pg_current_logfile() function  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Hi Micheal,

On Wed, 18 Jan 2017 10:26:43 -0600
"Karl O. Pinc" <kop@meme.com> wrote:

> > v26 patch attached which fixes this.  

I was glancing over the changes to the documentation
you made between the v22 and v25 and from looking at the diffs 
it seems the format of the current_logfiles file content is no longer
documented.  Seems to me that the file format should
be documented if there's any intention that the end user
look at or otherwise use the file's content.

It's fine with me if the content of current_logfiles
is supposed to be internal to PG and not exposed
to the end user.  I'm writing to make sure that
this is a considered decision.

I also see that all the index entries in the docs
to the current_logfiles file were removed.  (And
I think maybe some index entries to various places
where pg_current_logfiles() was mentioned in the docs.)
I see no reason why we shouldn't have more rather
than fewer index entries in the docs.

I haven't made any sort of though review of your
changes to the docs but this jumped out at me
and I wanted to comment before the patches got
passed on to the committers.

Regards,

Karl <kop@meme.com>
Free Software:  "You don't pay back, you pay forward."                -- Robert A. Heinlein



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Erik Rijkers
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Logical replication existing data copy
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: [HACKERS] Function transform optimizations versus reality