From: | "MauMau" <maumau307(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Michael Paquier" <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Heikki Linnakangas" <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, "PostgreSQL mailing lists" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Recovery to backup point |
Date: | 2014-01-12 03:56:01 |
Message-ID: | B504246BF58B4CEDAE6EFDF58C57053C@maumau |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
From: "Michael Paquier" <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 12:08 AM, MauMau <maumau307(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> C2. "recovery_target = 'immediate'" sounds less intuitive than my
>> suggestion
>> "recovery_target_time = 'backup_point'", at least for those who want to
>> recover to the backup point.
>> Although I don't have a good naming sense in English, the value should be
>> a
>> noun, not an adjective like "immediate", because the value specifies the
>> "target (point)" of recovery.
> "immediate" is perfectly fine IMO, it fits with what this recovery
> target aims at: an immediate consistency point. My 2c on that.
OK, I believe the naming sense of people whose mother tongue is English. I
thought the value should be a noun like "earliest_consistency_point" or
"earliest_consistency" (I don't these are good, though).
Regards
MauMau
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2014-01-12 04:03:34 | Re: Standalone synchronous master |
Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2014-01-12 03:20:07 | Re: units in postgresql.conf comments |