On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 10:17 AM, Abhijit Menon-Sen <a...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > At 2016-11-04 10:35:05 +0000, si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: >> Since the "lots of parameters" approach is almost exactly what we have >> now, I think we should do that first, get this patch committed and >> then sit back and discuss an improved API and see what downsides it >> introduces. > > Thanks, I agree strongly with this. > > Someone (Michael?) earlier mentioned the potential for introducing bugs > with this patch (the idea of merging recovery.conf into postgresql.conf > at all, not this particular incarnation). > > I think the current proposed approach with > > recovery_target=xid > recovery_target_xid=xxx > > is preferable because (a) it doesn't introduce much new code, e.g., new > parsing functions, nor (b) need many changes in the documentation—all we > need is to say that of the various recovery_target_xxx parameters, the > one that has priority is the one named by recovery_target. > > If I were to introduce recovery_target='xid xxx', I would at a minimum > need to factor out (or duplicate) parsing and error handling code, make > a type/value union-in-struct to store in the GUC *extra, then make sure > that we handle the older values in a backwards-compatible way, and move > a bunch of documentation around.
Just to be clear, the sum total of the additional "parsing" we are talking about is looking for the first sequence of 1 or more spaces in the input string and separating the stuff before them from the stuff after them. I agree that there's some work there, but I'm surprised to hear that you think it's a lot of work. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers