From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Specifying both recovery_target_xid and recovery_target_time |
Date: | 2014-01-08 17:36:22 |
Message-ID: | CA+U5nMLX2h_5xnvSAenjZ6DB7cyY+PRy7NnDXqF--428j3CPJg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 8 January 2014 15:38, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> wrote:
> The docs say:
>
>> At most one of recovery_target_time, recovery_target_name or
>> recovery_target_xid can be specified
>
>
> However, the code actually allows them all to be specified at the same time:
>
>> else if (strcmp(item->name, "recovery_target_name") == 0)
>> {
>> /*
>> * if recovery_target_xid specified, then this
>> overrides
>> * recovery_target_name
>> */
>> if (recoveryTarget == RECOVERY_TARGET_XID)
>> continue;
>> recoveryTarget = RECOVERY_TARGET_NAME;
>
>
> The precedence is XID, time, name.
>
> I think the documented behavior would make more sense, ie. throw an error if
> you try to specify multiple targets. Anyone remember if that was
> intentional? Any objections to change the code to match the docs, in master?
It seems like I was grasping at some meaning but didn't quite achieve it.
Changing it to mean OR would make sense, but that would be more work.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2014-01-08 17:39:23 | Re: Standalone synchronous master |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-01-08 16:13:20 | Re: Simple improvements to freespace allocation |