On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 5:45 PM vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 21 Oct 2022 at 11:31, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 09:23:38PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > Hmmm ... I'd tend to do SELECT COUNT(*) FROM. But can't we provide
> > > any actual checks on the sanity of the output? I realize that the
> > > output's far from static, but still ...
> >
> > Honestly, checking all the fields is not that exciting, but the
> > maximum I can think of that would be portable enough is something like
> > the attached. No arithmetic operators for xid limits things a bit,
> > but at least that's something.
> >
> > Thoughts?
>
> The patch does not apply on top of HEAD as in [1], please post a rebased patch:
>
Because of the extra WAL overhead, we are not continuing with the
patch, I will withdraw it.
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
