| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Piotr Stefaniak <postgres(at)piotr-stefaniak(dot)me> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: recovery_target_time = 'now' is not an error but still impractical setting |
| Date: | 2017-08-18 18:51:09 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmobuFRFX+V-7ZChRACRFGcK4Ht6H6ZxMEauVisxKUA_-mA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 4:39 AM, Piotr Stefaniak
<postgres(at)piotr-stefaniak(dot)me> wrote:
> On 2017-08-17 11:24, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> Your suggestion of "furthest" is already the default behaviour.
>>
>> Why are you using 'now'? Why would you want to pick a randomly
>> selected end time?
>
> The idea in both cases was to stop the recovery in order to prevent the
> standby from selecting new timeline. I want to be able to continue the
> recovery from future WAL files. "Furthest" really meant "as far as
> possible without completing recovery".
Can you use recovery_target_action='shutdown' instead?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Steele | 2017-08-18 18:58:38 | Re: Update low-level backup documentation to match actual behavior |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-08-18 18:48:31 | Re: [Proposal] Allow users to specify multiple tables in VACUUM commands |