| From: | David Steele <david(at)pgbackrest(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Improve verification of recovery_target_timeline GUC. |
| Date: | 2025-01-24 13:36:45 |
| Message-ID: | a17d1bf9-8123-4b86-9c84-5b7526cd70fd@pgbackrest.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 1/24/25 01:44, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 02:53:39PM +0000, David Steele wrote:
>
>> I discovered this while testing on Postgres versions < 12 where
>> The tests are probably excessive but I needed something to show that the
>> verification works as expected.
>
> Even with your patch, specifying an incorrect name results in a
> complaint about a timeline of 0. Wouldn't it be better to strengthen
> the parsing in check_recovery_target_timeline() and/or the error
> message reported?
I attached the wrong patch. Oops!
Regards,
-David
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| timeline-check-v1.patch | text/plain | 4.2 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2025-01-24 13:37:18 | Re: Quadratic planning time for ordered paths over partitioned tables |
| Previous Message | Ashutosh Bapat | 2025-01-24 13:36:11 | Re: SQL Property Graph Queries (SQL/PGQ) |