Horton

Re: primary_conninfo missing from pg_stat_wal_receiver

Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Tatsuo Ishii <ishii@postgresql.org>, Vik Fearing <vik@2ndquadrant.fr>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2016-07-01T00:46:48Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Attachments

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

Commits

  1. Add conninfo to pg_stat_wal_receiver

  2. Only show pg_stat_replication details to superusers