Re: [HACKERS] Should pg_current_wal_location() becomepg_current_wal_lsn() - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Should pg_current_wal_location() becomepg_current_wal_lsn()
Date
Msg-id 20170511001517.GA17200@momjian.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Should pg_current_wal_location() becomepg_current_wal_lsn()  (Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 01:09:36PM -0700, Joe Conway wrote:
> On 05/10/2017 12:22 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> >> On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 1:13 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >>> In terms of the alternatives I listed previously, it seems like
> >>> nobody liked alternatives #3, #4, or #5, leaving us with #1 (do
> >>> nothing) or #2 (apply this patch).  By my count, Peter is the
> >>> only one in favor of doing nothing, and is outvoted.  I'll push
> >>> the patch later today if I don't hear additional comments.
> > 
> >> For the record, I also voted for doing nothing.
> > 
> > Hm, well, anybody else want to vote?
> 
> +1 for #2

Same, +1 for #2 (apply this patch)

--  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com

+ As you are, so once was I.  As I am, so you will be. +
+                      Ancient Roman grave inscription +



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [HACKERS] MSVC odd TAP test problem
Next
From: Masahiko Sawada
Date:
Subject: [HACKERS] Moving relation extension locks out of heavyweight lock manager