Re: Proposal for changes to recovery.conf API - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: Proposal for changes to recovery.conf API
Date
Msg-id CAB7nPqQmqKQhpFkfYSRM7+AiJoECKehpmYTip02zdNn16Dvo_w@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Proposal for changes to recovery.conf API  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Proposal for changes to recovery.conf API  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>)
Re: Proposal for changes to recovery.conf API  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 11:31 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> I liked Heikki's suggestion (at some point quite a while ago now) of
> recovery_target = 'xid 123' or recovery_target='lsn 0/723' or
> whatever.

My vote goes for having two separate parameters, because as we know
that there will be always two fields in this parameter, there is no
need to complicate the GUC machinery with a new special case when
parsing its value. Having two parameters would also make easier the
life of anybody maintaining a library parsing parameters for values
and doing in-place updates of those values. For example, I maintain a
set of routines in Python doing that with some fancy regex routines,
and that would avoid having to handle a special case when willing to
update for example the same recovery target with a new value.
-- 
Michael



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Venkata B Nagothi
Date:
Subject: Re: Contents of "backup_label" and "*.backup" in pg_wal location
Next
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: Contents of "backup_label" and "*.backup" in pg_wal location