Christoph Berg <c...@df7cb.de> writes: > Re: Petr Jelinek 2014-11-25 <5474efea.2040...@2ndquadrant.com> >> >Patch committed.
Before I go and rebase that recovery.conf -> GUC patch on top of this... is it final? >> >> Thanks! > > I'm a bit late to the party, but wouldn't > > recovery_target_action = ... > > have been a better name for this? It'd be in line with the other > recovery_target_* parameters, and also a bit shorter than the imho > somewhat ugly "action_at_recovery_target". FWIW, I too think that "recovery_target_action" is a better name. -- Alex -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
