Re: exposing pg_controldata and pg_config as functions - Mailing list pgsql-hackers
From | Joe Conway |
---|---|
Subject | Re: exposing pg_controldata and pg_config as functions |
Date | |
Msg-id | 56C7D98B.9010808@joeconway.com Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: exposing pg_controldata and pg_config as functions (Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>) |
Responses |
Re: exposing pg_controldata and pg_config as functions
|
List | pgsql-hackers |
On 01/17/2016 04:10 PM, Joe Conway wrote: > On 01/16/2016 06:02 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: >> On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 9:08 AM, Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com> wrote: >>> 3) Adds new functions, more or less in line with previous discussions: >>> * pg_checkpoint_state() >>> * pg_controldata_state() >>> * pg_recovery_state() >>> * pg_init_state() >> >> Taking the opposite direction of Josh upthread, why is this split >> actually necessary? Isn't the idea to provide a SQL interface of what >> pg_controldata shows? If this split proves to be useful, shouldn't we >> do it as well for pg_controldata? > > The last discussion moved strongly in the direction of separate > functions, and that being different from pg_controldata was not a bad > thing. That said, I'm still of the opinion that there are legitimate > reasons to want the command line pg_controldata and the SQL functions to > produce equivalent, if not identical, results. I just wish we could get > a clear consensus one way or the other. I've assumed that we are sticking with the separate functions. As such, here is a rebased patch, with documentation and other fixes such as Copyright year, Mkvcbuild support, and some cruft removal. >> I think that those functions should be superuser-only. They provide >> information about the system globally. > > The tail of this thread seems to be headed away from this direction. > I'll take another look and propose something concrete. I've looked at existing functions that seem similar, and as far as I can see none are superuser-only. I'm certainly happy to make them so if that's the consensus, but currently they are wide open. Opinions? For convenience in answering that question, here is what information is included in the output of each function (\df so you can see the data types, plus SELECT output for a more readable example): 8<------------------------- postgres=# \x Expanded display is on. postgres=# \df pg_checkpoint_state Name | pg_checkpoint_state Result data type | record Argument data types | OUT checkpoint_location pg_lsn, OUT prior_location pg_lsn, OUT redo_location pg_lsn, OUT redo_wal_file text, OUT timeline_id integer, OUT prev_timeline_id integer, OUT full_page_writes boolean, OUT next_xid text, OUT next_oid oid, OUT next_multixact_id xid, OUT next_multi_offset xid, OUT oldest_xid xid, OUT oldest_xid_dbid oid, OUT oldest_active_xid xid, OUT oldest_multi_xid xid, OUT oldest_multi_dbid oid, OUT oldest_commit_ts_xid xid, OUT newest_commit_ts_xid xid, OUT checkpoint_time timestamp with time zone postgres=# select * from pg_checkpoint_state(); -[ RECORD 1 ]--------+------------------------- checkpoint_location | 0/14CD368 prior_location | 0/14CD0D0 redo_location | 0/14CD368 redo_wal_file | 000000010000000000000001 timeline_id | 1 prev_timeline_id | 1 full_page_writes | t next_xid | 0:576 next_oid | 12415 next_multixact_id | 1 next_multi_offset | 0 oldest_xid | 568 oldest_xid_dbid | 1 oldest_active_xid | 0 oldest_multi_xid | 1 oldest_multi_dbid | 1 oldest_commit_ts_xid | 0 newest_commit_ts_xid | 0 checkpoint_time | 2016-02-19 18:44:51-08 postgres=# \df pg_controldata_state Name | pg_controldata_state Result data type | record Argument data types | OUT pg_control_version integer, OUT catalog_version_no integer, OUT system_identifier bigint, OUT pg_control_last_modified timestamp with time zone postgres=# select * from pg_controldata_state(); -[ RECORD 1 ]------------+----------------------- pg_control_version | 942 catalog_version_no | 201602171 system_identifier | 6253198751269127743 pg_control_last_modified | 2016-02-19 18:44:58-08 postgres=# \df pg_init_state Name | pg_init_state Result data type | record Argument data types | OUT max_data_alignment integer, OUT database_block_size integer, OUT blocks_per_segment integer, OUT wal_block_size integer, OUT bytes_per_wal_segment integer, OUT max_identifier_length integer, OUT max_index_columns integer, OUT max_toast_chunk_size integer, OUT large_object_chunk_size integer, OUT bigint_timestamps boolean, OUT float4_pass_by_value boolean, OUT float8_pass_by_value boolean, OUT data_page_checksum_version integer postgres=# select * from pg_init_state(); -[ RECORD 1 ]--------------+--------- max_data_alignment | 8 database_block_size | 8192 blocks_per_segment | 131072 wal_block_size | 8192 bytes_per_wal_segment | 16777216 max_identifier_length | 64 max_index_columns | 32 max_toast_chunk_size | 1996 large_object_chunk_size | 2048 bigint_timestamps | t float4_pass_by_value | t float8_pass_by_value | t data_page_checksum_version | 0 postgres=# \df pg_recovery_state Result data type | record Argument data types | OUT min_recovery_end_location pg_lsn, OUT min_recovery_end_timeline integer, OUT backup_start_location pg_lsn, OUT backup_end_location pg_lsn, OUT end_of_backup_record_required boolean postgres=# select * from pg_recovery_state(); -[ RECORD 1 ]-----------------+---- min_recovery_end_location | 0/0 min_recovery_end_timeline | 0 backup_start_location | 0/0 backup_end_location | 0/0 end_of_backup_record_required | f 8<------------------------- Is there general consensus that we want this feature, and that we want it in this form? Any other comments? Joe -- Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development
Attachment
pgsql-hackers by date: