On Wed, Jul 8, 2026 at 10:39 AM Fujii Masao <[email protected]> wrote: > We can remove assign_recovery_target_name()?
Yes, done in v9. recovery_target_name now stores directly into recoveryTargetName, so recovery_target_name_string and the assign hook are both gone. On Tue, Jul 7, 2026 at 3:59 PM Michael Paquier <[email protected]> wrote: > FWIW, I think that this is redundant, as the errmsg and the errdetail > are basically saying the same thing. I'd suggest a simpler: > errmsg: cannot specify more than one recovery target > errdetail: Parameters set are: %s. Applied in v9. > I smell of an AI set of comments. We could just remove the whole and > not lose value in understanding the meaning of the test. A bunch of > the comments added to the TAP script could also be trimmed down quite > a bit, made simpler.. Done, and I trimmed the rest of the TAP comments too. > With recovery_target assign hook being removed for the case of > immediate, a test case that checks for a conflict between immediate > and a secondary target may be in order. Added in v9. Thanks to you both for the reviews. -- JH Shin
v9-0001-Don-t-call-ereport-ERROR-from-recovery-target-GUC.patch
Description: Binary data
