On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 09:45:56PM -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 1/8/18 23:47, Michael Paquier wrote: > Should we just remove it? Apparently, it was never functional to begin > with. Otherwise, we'd have to write a second query to return the value > to print. wait_for_slot_catchup has the same issue. Seems like a lot > of overhead for something that has never been used.
Fine for me to remove it. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
