* Venkata B Nagothi (nag1...@gmail.com) wrote: > *Query 1* > > What about the existing parameter called "recovery_target" which accepts > only one value "immediate", which will be similar to the "promote" option > with the to-be-introduced new parameter. > Since this parameter's behaviour will be incorporated into the new > parameter, I think, this parameter can be deprecated from the next > PostgreSQL version ?
I don't think we can really consider that without having a good answer for what the "new parameter" is, in particular... > *Query 2* > > I am thinking that the new parameter name should be > "recovery_target_incomplete" or "recovery_target_incomplete_action" which > (by name) suggests that recovery target point is not yet reached and > accepts options "pause","promote" and "shutdown". > > The other alternative name i thought of was - > "recovery_target_immediate_action", which (by name) suggests the action to > be taken when the recovery does not reach the actual set recovery target > and reaches immediate consistent point. I don't really care for any of those names. Note that "immediate" and "the point at which we realize that we didn't find the recovery target" are *not* necessairly the same. Whatever we do here needs to also cover the 'recovery_target_name' option, where we're only going to realize that we didn't find the restore point when we reach the end of the WAL stream. I'm not a fan of the "recovery_target" option, particularly as it's only got one value even though it can mean two things (either "immediate" or "not set"), but we need a complete solution before we can consider deprecating it. Further, we could consider making it an alias for whatever better name we come up with. Thanks! Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
