From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
Subject: | Re: Simplifying the interface of UpdateMinRecoveryPoint |
Date: | 2016-07-13 13:25:08 |
Message-ID: | CAB7nPqQNzatASHdWuhvEoLXg-wjP2JOzn1983KiMME8xRPcfYg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 8:27 PM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 9:19 AM, Michael Paquier
> <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Hence why not simplifying its interface and remove the force flag?
>
> One point to note is that the signature and usage of
> UpdateMinRecoveryPoint() is same as it was when it got introduced in
> commit-cdd46c76. Now the only reasons that come to my mind for
> introducing the force parameter was (a) it looks cleaner that way to
> committer (b) they have some usecase for the same in mind (c) it got
> have overlooked. Now, if it got introduced due to (c), then your
> patch does the right thing by removing it. Personally, I feel
> overloading the parameter for multiple purposes makes code less
> maintainable, so retaining as it is in HEAD has some merits.
There is no way to tell what that is, but perhaps Heikki recalls
something on the matter. I am just adding him in CC.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2016-07-13 13:31:34 | Re: Simplifying the interface of UpdateMinRecoveryPoint |
Previous Message | pgerber | 2016-07-13 13:21:22 | BUG #14247: COMMENT is restored on wrong database |