Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> writes:
> This is obviously incorrect because recovery_min_apply_delay has been only
> introduced in 9.4. The culprit is visibly the commit message of 8049839 and
> others that mentioned the parameter, though the patch applied does nothing
> about it. Please see attached a patch to fix that.
Good catch! That's on me I guess for not checking what the patch had done
in the back branches.
I didn't like simply deleting any description of the patch's effects, though.
Instead I made it talk about recovery_target_xid, which does exist in all
those branches.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
