On Sun, Feb 6, 2022 at 7:45 AM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> For what it's worth, I am generally in favor of having something like
> this in PostgreSQL. I think it's wrong of us to continue assuming that
> everyone has command-line access. Even when that's true, it's not
> necessarily convenient. If you choose to use a relational database,
> you may be the sort of person who likes SQL. And if you are, you may
> want to have the database tell you what's going on via SQL rather than
> command-line tools or operating system utilities. Imagine if we didn't
> have pg_stat_activity and you had to get that information by running a
> separate binary. Would anyone like that? Why is this case any
> different?
+1. An SQL interface is significantly easier to work with. Especially
because it can use the built-in LSN type, pg_lsn.
I don't find the slippery slope argument convincing. There aren't that
many other things that are like pg_waldump, but haven't already been
exposed via an SQL interface. Offhand, I can't think of any.
--
Peter Geoghegan
