On 01/03/2017 08:47 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > 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. >
Either solution works for me. -- -- Josh Berkus Red Hat OSAS (any opinions are my own) -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
