On 28/11/14 17:46, Alex Shulgin wrote:
Christoph Berg <[email protected]> writes:
Re: Petr Jelinek 2014-11-25 <[email protected]>
Patch committed.
Before I go and rebase that recovery.conf -> GUC patch on top of
this... is it final?
I think so, perhaps sans the name mentioned below.
Thanks!
I'm a bit late to the party, but wouldn't
recovery_target_action = ...
have been a better name for this? It'd be in line with the other
recovery_target_* parameters, and also a bit shorter than the imho
somewhat ugly "action_at_recovery_target".
FWIW, I too think that "recovery_target_action" is a better name.
I agree.
--
Petr Jelinek http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list ([email protected])
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
