On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 11:21 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 3 January 2017 at 15:50, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 4:14 PM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >>> Trying to fit recovery targets into one parameter was really not >>> feasible, though I tried. >> >> What was the problem? > > There are 5 different parameters that affect the recovery target, 3 of > which are optional. That is much more complex than the two compulsory > parameters suggested when the proposal was made and in my view tips > the balance over the edge into pointlessness. Michael's suggestion for > 2 parameters works well for this case.
I still think merging recovery_target_type and recovery_target_value into a single parameter could make sense, never mind the other three. But I don't really want to argue about it any more. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
