Re: Recovery target 'immediate'

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Recovery target 'immediate'
Date: 2013-04-26 16:41:18
Message-ID: CA+TgmoaQ7brEzNjK9s-DdS+J9=WnnVV7v8+1yB4XeWoqnoMZ=w@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
<hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> wrote:
>> Doing it the other way means you need to add a new kind of recovery
>> target to the API just for this.
>> recovery_target_immediate = on
>
> Sounds good to me.

Yeah, I don't have a problem with that, at all.

> Actually, from a usability point of view I think would be nice to have just
> one setting, "recovery_target". It's already somewhat confusing to have
> recovery_target_xid, recovery_target_time, and recovery_target_name, which
> are mutually exclusive, and recovery_target_inclusive which is just a
> modifier for the others. Maybe something like:
>
> recovery_target = 'xid 1234'
> recovery_target = 'xid 1234 exclusive'
> recovery_target = '2013-04-22 12:33'
> recovery_target = '2013-04-22 12:33 exclusive'
> recovery_target = 'consistent'
> recovery_target = 'name: daily backup'

I agree that the current API is confusing in exactly the way you
describe. Whether this is an improvement, I'm not sure.

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2013-04-26 16:43:35 Re: Recovery target 'immediate'
Previous Message Tom Lane 2013-04-26 16:32:57 Re: Functional dependencies and GROUP BY - for subqueries