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

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Should pg_current_wal_location() become pg_current_wal_lsn()
Date
Msg-id 29141.1494050962@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Should pg_current_wal_location() become pg_current_wal_lsn()  (Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Should pg_current_wal_location() become pg_current_wal_lsn()  (Neha Khatri <nehakhatri5@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> writes:
> On Fri, May 05, 2017 at 03:36:39AM +1200, David Rowley wrote:
>> Do any of the committers who voted for this change feel inclined to
>> pick this patch up?

> I'll echo that question.  This open item lacks a clear owner.  One might argue
> that 806091c caused it by doing the backward-compatibility breaks that
> inspired this patch, but that's a link too tenuous to create ownership.

If no one else takes this, I will pick it up --- but I don't anticipate
having any time for it until after Monday's back-branch release wraps.
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Noah Misch
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Should pg_current_wal_location() become pg_current_wal_lsn()
Next
From: Fabien COELHO
Date:
Subject: [HACKERS] "CURRENT_ROLE" is not documented