On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 8:50 PM, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 6:10 PM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> On 23 August 2016 at 09:39, Petr Jelinek <p...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> >>> Looks very reasonable to me (both patches). Thanks for doing that. >>> >>> I am inclined to mark this as ready for committer. >> >> Looking at it now. >> >> The messages for recovery_target_lsn don't mention after or before, as >> do other targets... e.g. >> recoveryStopAfter ? "after" : "before", >> My understanding is that if you request an LSN that isn't the exact >> end point of a WAL record then it will either stop before or after the >> requested point, so that needs to be described in the docs and in the >> messages generated prior to starting to search. >> >> Everything else looks in good order. > > You are right, this message should be completed as such. Do you want > an updated patch?
Well, I finished by updating the patch anyway. -- Michael
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers