From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> |
Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Recovery target 'immediate' |
Date: | 2013-04-26 16:41:18 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoaQ7brEzNjK9s-DdS+J9=WnnVV7v8+1yB4XeWoqnoMZ=w@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
<hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> wrote:
>> Doing it the other way means you need to add a new kind of recovery
>> target to the API just for this.
>> recovery_target_immediate = on
>
> Sounds good to me.
Yeah, I don't have a problem with that, at all.
> Actually, from a usability point of view I think would be nice to have just
> one setting, "recovery_target". It's already somewhat confusing to have
> recovery_target_xid, recovery_target_time, and recovery_target_name, which
> are mutually exclusive, and recovery_target_inclusive which is just a
> modifier for the others. Maybe something like:
>
> recovery_target = 'xid 1234'
> recovery_target = 'xid 1234 exclusive'
> recovery_target = '2013-04-22 12:33'
> recovery_target = '2013-04-22 12:33 exclusive'
> recovery_target = 'consistent'
> recovery_target = 'name: daily backup'
I agree that the current API is confusing in exactly the way you
describe. Whether this is an improvement, I'm not sure.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2013-04-26 16:43:35 | Re: Recovery target 'immediate' |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2013-04-26 16:32:57 | Re: Functional dependencies and GROUP BY - for subqueries |