Re: Recovery target 'immediate'
От | Heikki Linnakangas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Recovery target 'immediate' |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 517AB5B8.10203@vmware.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Recovery target 'immediate' (Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: Recovery target 'immediate'
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 26.04.2013 19:50, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 6:43 PM, Simon Riggs<simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> On 26 April 2013 17:25, Heikki Linnakangas<hlinnakangas@vmware.com> wrote: >>> Actually, from a usability point of view I think would be nice to have just >>> one setting, "recovery_target". It's already somewhat confusing to have >>> recovery_target_xid, recovery_target_time, and recovery_target_name, which >>> are mutually exclusive, and recovery_target_inclusive which is just a >>> modifier for the others. Maybe something like: >>> >>> recovery_target = 'xid 1234' >>> recovery_target = 'xid 1234 exclusive' >>> recovery_target = '2013-04-22 12:33' >>> recovery_target = '2013-04-22 12:33 exclusive' >>> recovery_target = 'consistent' >>> recovery_target = 'name: daily backup' >> >> So now you want to change the whole existing API so it fits with your >> one new requirement? No, I think the above would be a usability improvement whether or not we add the new feature. > I like that newer API suggestion better than what we have now - though > it can perhaps be improved even more. But I definitely don't think > it's worth breaking backwards compatibility for it. There are lots of > tools and scripts and whatnot out there that use the current API. I > think we need a bigger improvement than just a cleaner syntax to break > those. It would be possible to do it in a backwards-compatible way, keeping the old API as is. But yeah, might not be worth the effort. - Heikki
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: