On 12 January 2017 at 13:34, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 1/11/17 5:27 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: >> The main area of "design doubt" remains the implementation of the >> recovery_target parameter set. Are we happy with the user interface >> choices in the patch, given the understanding that the situation was >> more comple than at first thought? > > Could you summarize the current proposal(s)? > > Personally, I don't immediately see the need to change anything from the > parameter names that I currently see in recovery.conf.sample.
New patch version implementing everything you requested, incl docs and tap tests. The patch as offered here is what I've been asked to do by everybody as well as I can do it. I'm very happy to receive comments and to rework the design based upon further feedback. I'm not completely convinced this is a great design, so I'm happy to hear input. pg_basebackup -R is the main wrinkle. The timeline handling has a bug at present that I'm working on, but I'm not worried it constitutes a major problem. Obviously it will be fixed before commit, but the patch needs more discussion now/yesterday. All parameters are set at PGC_POSTMASTER for now. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Description: Binary data
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers