Re: LSN as a recovery target

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Adrien Nayrat <adrien(dot)nayrat(at)dalibo(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: 2016-09-04 03:50:21
Message-ID: CAB7nPqQfQSaFf6bk7LU-jnK15ZDHVvngYM+rOrgNWTj40MkZgg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sun, Sep 4, 2016 at 8:05 AM, Michael Paquier
<michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 4, 2016 at 1:57 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> On 24 August 2016 at 05:50, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Everything else looks in good order.
>>
>> Committed. Thanks.
>
> Thanks for the commit!

By the way, what has been committed does not include the patch adding
the parsing context in case of an error as wanted upthread. Perhaps
that's not worth adding now as there is the GUC refactoring
potentially happening for the recovery parameters, so I don't mind
much. Just that's worth mentioning.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Craig Ringer 2016-09-04 04:18:23 Re: autonomous transactions
Previous Message Tom Lane 2016-09-04 00:04:20 Re: Transactional enum additions - was Re: Alter or rename enum value