On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 10:53 PM, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 1:03 PM, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 6:45 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: >> > I'm only talking about the actual value in pg_stat_replication here, not >> > what we are using internally. These are two different things of course - >> > let's keep them separate for now. In pg_stat_replication, we explicitly >> > check for InvalidXLogRecPtr and then explicitly set the resulting value >> > to >> > NULL in the SQL return. >> >> No objections from here. I guess you already have a patch? > > Well, no, because I haven't figured out which way is the logical one - make > them all return NULL or make them all return 0/0...
It seems to me that NULL is the logical one. We want to define a value from the user prospective where things are in an undefined state. That's my logic flow, other opinions are of course welcome. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
