On 07/13/2016 04:25 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 8:27 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 9:19 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
Hence why not simplifying its interface and remove the force flag?
One point to note is that the signature and usage of
UpdateMinRecover
On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 10:31 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 12 July 2016 at 23:49, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> Hence why not simplifying its interface and remove the force flag?
>
> Is this change needed as part of a feature? If not, I see no reason for
> change.
>
> If we all work towards meaningful
On 12 July 2016 at 23:49, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Hence why not simplifying its interface and remove the force flag?
Is this change needed as part of a feature? If not, I see no reason for
change.
If we all work towards meaningful features the code can be cleaned up as we
go.
--
Simon Rigg
On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 8:27 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 9:19 AM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> Hence why not simplifying its interface and remove the force flag?
>
> One point to note is that the signature and usage of
> UpdateMinRecoveryPoint() is same as it was when it got i
On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 9:19 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> As of now UpdateMinRecoveryPoint() is using two arguments:
> - lsn, to check if the minimum recovery point should be updated to that
> - force, a boolean flag to decide if the update should be enforced or not.
> However those tw
Hi all,
As of now UpdateMinRecoveryPoint() is using two arguments:
- lsn, to check if the minimum recovery point should be updated to that
- force, a boolean flag to decide if the update should be enforced or not.
However those two arguments are correlated. If lsn is
InvalidXlogRecPtr, the minimum
