On 18 August 2017 at 07:30, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 6:24 PM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> On 15 August 2017 at 15:37, Piotr Stefaniak <postg...@piotr-stefaniak.me> >> wrote: >> >>> One thing I tried was a combination of recovery_target_action = >>> 'shutdown' and recovery_target_time = 'now'. The result is surprising >> >> Indeed, special timestamp values were never considered in the design, >> so I'm not surprised they don't work and have never been tested. > > We could always use a TRY/CATCH block and add an error in > GetCurrentDateTime and GetCurrentTimeUsec if they are called out of a > transaction context. Rather-safe-than-sorry. > >> Your suggestion of "furthest" is already the default behaviour. >> >> Why are you using 'now'? Why would you want to pick a randomly >> selected end time? > > "now" is not much interesting, targets in the past are more, like > 'yesterday'. This could create back an instance back to the beginning > of the previous day, simplifying scripts creating recovery.conf a bit, > even if that's not much simplification as we are talking about > creating a timestamp string.
I can't see any value in allowing imprecise and effective random timestamps. ISTM if we care, it would be better to simply exclude the 7 named timestamps prior to their being sent, as in the attached patch. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Description: Binary data
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers