On 01/03/2017 08:47 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> 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.
>
Either solution works for me.
--
--
Josh Berkus
Red Hat OSAS
(any opinions are my own)
