On 26.04.2013 19:50, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 6:43 PM, Simon Riggs<simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> On 26 April 2013 17:25, Heikki Linnakangas<hlinnakangas@vmware.com> wrote:
>>> 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'
>>
>> So now you want to change the whole existing API so it fits with your
>> one new requirement?
No, I think the above would be a usability improvement whether or not we
add the new feature.
> I like that newer API suggestion better than what we have now - though
> it can perhaps be improved even more. But I definitely don't think
> it's worth breaking backwards compatibility for it. There are lots of
> tools and scripts and whatnot out there that use the current API. I
> think we need a bigger improvement than just a cleaner syntax to break
> those.
It would be possible to do it in a backwards-compatible way, keeping the
old API as is. But yeah, might not be worth the effort.
- Heikki
