From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Jaime Casanova <jaime(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Named restore points |
Date: | 2011-02-08 14:05:15 |
Message-ID: | 1297173915.1770.7791.camel@ebony |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 2011-02-04 at 21:15 -0500, Jaime Casanova wrote:
> >
> > + else if (recoveryTarget == RECOVERY_TARGET_NAME)
> > + snprintf(buffer, sizeof(buffer),
> > + "%s%u\t%s\t%s named restore point %
> s\n",
> > + (srcfd < 0) ? "" : "\n",
> > + parentTLI,
> > + xlogfname,
> > + recoveryStopAfter ? "after" :
> "before",
> > + recoveryStopNamedRestorePoint);
> >
> > It doesn't matter if it is after or before the restore point.
> After/Before
> > only make sense when we're dealing with transaction or time.
> Removed.
> >
>
> you're right
Not sure I understand the comment "only make sense when we're dealing
with transaction or time." Why?
At present, I think the ability to stop before/after a named restore
point should be put back.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/books/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2011-02-08 14:40:38 | Re: arrays as pl/perl input arguments [PATCH] |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2011-02-08 14:00:27 | Re: Named restore points |