Re: min_recovery_apply_delay

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Fabrízio Mello <fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: min_recovery_apply_delay
Date: 2014-05-10 20:22:46
Message-ID: CA+TgmoYfO2Ut6YL=FY1fQDEftd2pdcvG04urif17OvBH6+i5eg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 10:44 PM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
<fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Wouldn't a better name be recovery_min_apply_delay?
>
> +1

Works for me.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Fujii Masao 2014-05-10 20:39:17 Re: Compression of full-page-writes
Previous Message Stephen Frost 2014-05-10 20:04:36 Re: Weird behaviour with the new MOVE clause of ALTER TABLESPACE