On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 11:21 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 3 January 2017 at 15:50, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 4:14 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@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.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
