| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | MauMau <maumau307(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: | 2014-01-10 06:34:44 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqSHwtP57QkmG_U3_YK8tU=rO12C_VwGZ+Nr4+gNA1Sugw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2014-01-10 06:47:58 | Re: Standalone synchronous master |
| Previous Message | Wim Lewis | 2014-01-10 06:12:28 | [review] libpq: Support TLSv1.1+ (was: fe-secure.c and SSL/TLS) |