Re: LSN as a recovery target

On 4 September 2016 at 04:50, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 4, 2016 at 8:05 AM, Michael Paquier
> <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Sep 4, 2016 at 1:57 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>>> On 24 August 2016 at 05:50, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Everything else looks in good order.
>>>
>>> Committed. Thanks.
>>
>> Thanks for the commit!

No problem, it was a good patch. Since I moan to others about lack of
docs, tests etc, I'll do the same here and compliment you on providing
a well rounded patch with docs, tests that does what it says in a
clean way.

> By the way, what has been committed does not include the patch adding
> the parsing context in case of an error as wanted upthread. Perhaps
> that's not worth adding now as there is the GUC refactoring
> potentially happening for the recovery parameters, so I don't mind
> much. Just that's worth mentioning.

Hmm, that was unintentional. If something stalls the recovery
parameter project, please remind me to commit that as well.

--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services