Re: Proposal for changes to recovery.conf API
Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
From: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, 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>,
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: 2017-01-03T17:40:15Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 01/03/2017 08:47 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > 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. > Either solution works for me. -- -- Josh Berkus Red Hat OSAS (any opinions are my own)