Re: Proposal for changes to recovery.conf API
Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
From: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>,
Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>,
Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>,
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams@2ndquadrant.com>,
"pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2017-01-12T13:34:10Z
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