Re: Recovery to backup point

From: "MauMau" <maumau307(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Michael Paquier" <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "Heikki Linnakangas" <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, "PostgreSQL mailing lists" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Recovery to backup point
Date: 2014-01-12 03:56:01
Message-ID: B504246BF58B4CEDAE6EFDF58C57053C@maumau
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

From: "Michael Paquier" <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 12:08 AM, MauMau <maumau307(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> C2. "recovery_target = 'immediate'" sounds less intuitive than my
>> suggestion
>> "recovery_target_time = 'backup_point'", at least for those who want to
>> recover to the backup point.
>> Although I don't have a good naming sense in English, the value should be
>> a
>> noun, not an adjective like "immediate", because the value specifies the
>> "target (point)" of recovery.
> "immediate" is perfectly fine IMO, it fits with what this recovery
> target aims at: an immediate consistency point. My 2c on that.

OK, I believe the naming sense of people whose mother tongue is English. I
thought the value should be a noun like "earliest_consistency_point" or
"earliest_consistency" (I don't these are good, though).

Regards
MauMau

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Kapila 2014-01-12 04:03:34 Re: Standalone synchronous master
Previous Message Josh Berkus 2014-01-12 03:20:07 Re: units in postgresql.conf comments