| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal for changes to recovery.conf API |
| Date: | 2017-01-12 13:34:10 |
| Message-ID: | 25ae8759-5f76-ccc1-0fc4-ac86330717c9@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 1/11/17 5:27 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> The main area of "design doubt" remains the implementation of the
> recovery_target parameter set. Are we happy with the user interface
> choices in the patch, given the understanding that the situation was
> more comple than at first thought?
Could you summarize the current proposal(s)?
Personally, I don't immediately see the need to change anything from the
parameter names that I currently see in recovery.conf.sample.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2017-01-12 13:39:29 | Re: many copies of atooid() and oid_cmp() |
| Previous Message | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI | 2017-01-12 13:12:33 | Re: BUG: pg_stat_statements query normalization issues with combined queries |