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

All parameters are set at PGC_POSTMASTER for now.

Simon Riggs                http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

Attachment: newRecoveryAPI.v102f.patch
Description: Binary data

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to