| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal for changes to recovery.conf API |
| Date: | 2017-01-11 13:02:53 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqQbmKJ7UHrKfbiA0wopAWiTeo8u=_UNS6s+dxmB_JL6JQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 7:36 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> The specification of the recovery target parameters should be different, IMHO.
>
> If the user is performing a recovery and the target of the recovery is
> incorrectly specified then it is clear that the recovery cannot
> continue with an imprecisely specified target. So in my understanding
> we would need to either
>
> 1) issue a WARNING and pause recovery
>
> 2) issue an ERROR (which becomes FATAL in Startup process) and exit recovery
>
> My view would be 2) is the most useful, though I am willing to hear
> other points and/or go with majority view
I agree with that. 2) is more consistent with what is in core now.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2017-01-11 13:28:28 | Re: WARM and indirect indexes |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2017-01-11 12:58:17 | Re: WARM and indirect indexes |