On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 9:29 AM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> Christoph Berg wrote:
>> Re: Michael Paquier 2016-05-24 
>> <CAB7nPqQRXsC8=ozh6GpjLnpZ=meoouzoaabzx28n2bjsmv2...@mail.gmail.com>
>> > Yeah, that's really something that covers only a narrow case, though
>> > if we don't have it when we need it we're limited to some hacks.
>> > Perhaps people who have the advanced level to use such a thing have
>> > the level to use hacks anyway..
>>
>> I'd think recovery_target_lsn would be more useful in practice than
>> the existing recovery_target_xid. So I don't see why it shouldn't just
>> be added, also given it's likely very unobtrusive to do so.
>
> Also, see
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/56bd0e4e.5050...@2ndquadrant.com

Looking at xlog.c it is not that complicated, and we could add tests
in 003_recovery_targets.pl at the same time. Perhaps somebody looking
for a first participation would be interested in this small project?
-- 
Michael


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Reply via email to