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
