On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 8:50 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 6:10 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> On 23 August 2016 at 09:39, Petr Jelinek <petr@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Looks very reasonable to me (both patches). Thanks for doing that.
>>>
>>> I am inclined to mark this as ready for committer.
>>
>> Looking at it now.
>>
>> The messages for recovery_target_lsn don't mention after or before, as
>> do other targets... e.g.
>> recoveryStopAfter ? "after" : "before",
>> My understanding is that if you request an LSN that isn't the exact
>> end point of a WAL record then it will either stop before or after the
>> requested point, so that needs to be described in the docs and in the
>> messages generated prior to starting to search.
>>
>> Everything else looks in good order.
>
> You are right, this message should be completed as such. Do you want
> an updated patch?
Well, I finished by updating the patch anyway.
--
Michael
