On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 3:29 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> On 2017-09-18 07:24:43 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> On 18 September 2017 at 05:50, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > Just noticed that we're returning the underlying values for
>> > pg_control_recovery() without any checks:
>> > postgres[14388][1]=# SELECT * FROM pg_control_recovery();
>> >
┌──────────────────────┬───────────────────────────┬──────────────────┬────────────────┬───────────────────────────────┐
>> > │ min_recovery_end_lsn │ min_recovery_end_timeline │ backup_start_lsn │ backup_end_lsn │
end_of_backup_record_required│
>> >
├──────────────────────┼───────────────────────────┼──────────────────┼────────────────┼───────────────────────────────┤
>> > │ 0/0 │ 0 │ 0/0 │ 0/0 │ f
│
>> >
└──────────────────────┴───────────────────────────┴──────────────────┴────────────────┴───────────────────────────────┘
>> > (1 row)
>>
>> Yes, that would have made sense for these to be NULL
>
> Yea, that's what I think was well. Joe, IIRC that's your code, do you
> agree as well?
+1 for NULLness here. That was a point not covered during the review
of the feature.
--
Michael
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers