| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: recovery_target_time and standby_mode |
| Date: | 2014-11-07 18:40:29 |
| Message-ID: | 545D121D.4020200@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
All,
The point of this thread was to determine:
Is the current interaction of recovery_target_time and standby_mode
(that is, that recovery_target_time causes standby_mode to be ignorned)
the correct behavior?
If Yes, then we have a tech bug and a doc bug:
Tech Bug: if the user sets both recovery_target_time and standby_mode in
recovery.conf, they should get an error.
Doc Bug: we should make it clear that these are exclusive options.
If No, then we have a tech bug to change the current functionality, and
a decision about backporting.
So far, I've seen one opinion (yes) on whether our current behavior is
correct or not. For my part, I would like to have a different
interacton, but I think that's a future feature rather than a bug, as
long as we do the stuff in the Yes column.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Banck | 2014-11-07 19:19:20 | Re: TODO request: log_long_transaction |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2014-11-07 18:35:45 | Re: recovery_target_time and standby_mode |