Re: Named restore points

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Jaime Casanova <jaime(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Named restore points
Date: 2011-02-08 14:05:15
Message-ID: 1297173915.1770.7791.camel@ebony
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, 2011-02-04 at 21:15 -0500, Jaime Casanova wrote:
> >
> > + else if (recoveryTarget == RECOVERY_TARGET_NAME)
> > + snprintf(buffer, sizeof(buffer),
> > + "%s%u\t%s\t%s named restore point %
> s\n",
> > + (srcfd < 0) ? "" : "\n",
> > + parentTLI,
> > + xlogfname,
> > + recoveryStopAfter ? "after" :
> "before",
> > + recoveryStopNamedRestorePoint);
> >
> > It doesn't matter if it is after or before the restore point.
> After/Before
> > only make sense when we're dealing with transaction or time.
> Removed.
> >
>
> you're right

Not sure I understand the comment "only make sense when we're dealing
with transaction or time." Why?

At present, I think the ability to stop before/after a named restore
point should be put back.

--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/books/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2011-02-08 14:40:38 Re: arrays as pl/perl input arguments [PATCH]
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2011-02-08 14:00:27 Re: Named restore points