On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 8:27 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 9:19 AM, Michael Paquier
> <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hence why not simplifying its interface and remove the force flag?
> One point to note is that the signature and usage of
> UpdateMinRecoveryPoint() is same as it was when it got introduced in
> commit-cdd46c76.  Now the only reasons that come to my mind for
> introducing the force parameter was (a) it looks cleaner that way to
> committer (b) they have some usecase for the same in mind (c) it got
> have overlooked.  Now, if it got introduced due to (c), then your
> patch does the right thing by removing it.  Personally, I feel
> overloading the parameter for multiple purposes makes code less
> maintainable, so retaining as it is in HEAD has some merits.

There is no way to tell what that is, but perhaps Heikki recalls
something on the matter. I am just adding him in CC.

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

Reply via email to