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?
--
Michael
