On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 2:06 PM Yugo NAGATA <nagata@sraoss.co.jp> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 13:29:23 +0530
> Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 12:50 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 2:00 AM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 6:10 AM Bharath Rupireddy
> > > > <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > +1 to just show the recovery pause state in the output of
> > > > > pg_is_wal_replay_paused. But, should the function name
> > > > > "pg_is_wal_replay_paused" be something like
> > > > > "pg_get_wal_replay_pause_state" or some other? To me, when "is" exists
> > > > > in a function, I expect a boolean output. Others may have better
> > > > > thoughts.
> > > >
> > > > Maybe we should leave the existing function pg_is_wal_replay_paused()
> > > > alone and add a new one with the name you suggest that returns text.
> > > > That would create less burden for tool authors.
> > >
> > > +1
> > >
> >
> > Yeah, we can do that, I will send an updated patch soon.
>
> This means pg_is_wal_replay_paused is left without any change and this
> returns whether pause is requested or not? If so, it seems good to modify
> the documentation of this function in order to note that this could not
> return the actual pause state.
Yes, we can say that it will return true if the replay pause is
requested. I am changing that in my new patch.
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
