On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 6:07 AM, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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. > I've applied these two patches now. The one that fixes the initialization backpatched to 9.3 which is the oldest one that has it, and the one that changes the actual 0-vs-NULL output to 9.5 only as it's a behaviour change. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
