Horton
Menu

Re: Proposal for changes to recovery.conf API

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>

View thread
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.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: 2017-01-03T16:47:04Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 11:21 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 3 January 2017 at 15:50, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 4:14 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>>> Trying to fit recovery targets into one parameter was really not
>>> feasible, though I tried.
>>
>> What was the problem?
>
> There are 5 different parameters that affect the recovery target, 3 of
> which are optional. That is much more complex than the two compulsory
> parameters suggested when the proposal was made and in my view tips
> the balance over the edge into pointlessness. Michael's suggestion for
> 2 parameters works well for this case.

I still think merging recovery_target_type and recovery_target_value
into a single parameter could make sense, never mind the other three.
But I don't really want to argue about it any more.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company