| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Adrien Nayrat <adrien(dot)nayrat(at)dalibo(dot)com>, Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Christoph Berg <myon(at)debian(dot)org>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Julien Rouhaud <julien(dot)rouhaud(at)dalibo(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: LSN as a recovery target |
| Date: | 2016-08-22 15:49:12 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYY_1b-Pbr=QEUn9SoWtLNxPW1CnQ3es9vjUo2sac9dpw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 8:28 AM, Michael Paquier
<michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 7:12 PM, Adrien Nayrat <adrien(dot)nayrat(at)dalibo(dot)com> wrote:
>> As Julien said, there is nothing to notice that error comes from
>> recovery.conf.
>> My fear would be that an user encounters an error like this. Il will be
>> difficult to link to the recovery.conf.
>
> Thinking a bit wider than that, we may want to know such context for
> normal GUC parameters as well, and that's not the case now. Perhaps
> there is actually a reason why that's not done for GUCs, but it seems
> that it would be useful there as well. That would give another reason
> to move all that under the GUC umbrella.
Maybe so, but that's been tried multiple times without success. If
you think an error context is useful here, and I bet it is, I'd say
just add it and be done with it.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2016-08-22 15:56:31 | Re: WAL consistency check facility |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-08-22 15:46:05 | Re: WAL consistency check facility |