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