On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 8:50 AM, Michael Paquier
<michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 8:48 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> Michael Paquier wrote:
>>> Yeah, I know. Now my opinion regarding this view is that we should
>>> show information about a currently-working WAL receiver, and that it
>>> has nothing to do with reporting information of its previous startup state.
>>> That's more consistent with the WAL sender.
>>
>> Okay, that argument I buy.
>>
>> I suppose this function/view should report no row at all if there is no
>> wal receiver connected, rather than a view with nulls.
>
> The function returns PG_RETURN_NULL() so as we don't have to use a
> SRF, and the view checks for IS NOT NULL, so there would be no rows
> popping up.
In short, I would just go with the attached and call it a day.
--
Michael