"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I would agree with this. We would need a history of checkpoints that > didn't reset until we told it to.
Indeed, but the submitted patch has nought whatsoever to do with that. It exposes some instantaneous state. You could perhaps *build* a log facility on top of that, at the SQL level; but I don't see the point, and I definitely disagree that it would be "easier than trolling the logs". regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-patches mailing list (pgsql-patches@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-patches