Re: Proposal for changes to recovery.conf API

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Abhijit Menon-Sen <abhijit(dot)menon-sen(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Proposal for changes to recovery.conf API
Date: 2016-09-06 13:38:43
Message-ID: CAB7nPqTUjBari5HYt6gJX7QVHT3UvOkzHqyo8yeC3-ShtCsy+Q@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 10:01 PM, Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> That's also reasonable solution, I don't really have preference between
> those. My main point was to get rid of the 5 or so variables where only one
> will actually be used in the end.

And no need to worry about the priority of the target types here. The
last value specified wins.
--
Michael

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2016-09-06 14:08:56 Re: Quorum commit for multiple synchronous replication.
Previous Message Tom Lane 2016-09-06 13:17:55 Re: Bug in 9.6 tuplesort batch memory growth logic