On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 10:45 PM, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 10:13 PM, Petr Jelinek <p...@2ndquadrant.com> > wrote: > > On 02/12/14 18:59, Robert Haas wrote: > >> > >> On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 11:59 AM, Petr Jelinek <p...@2ndquadrant.com> > >> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> I'm a bit late to the party, but wouldn't > >>>>> > >>>>> recovery_target_action = ... > >>>>> > >>>>> have been a better name for this? It'd be in line with the other > >>>>> recovery_target_* parameters, and also a bit shorter than the imho > >>>>> somewhat ugly "action_at_recovery_target". > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> FWIW, I too think that "recovery_target_action" is a better name. > >>> > >>> > >>> I agree. > >> > >> > >> +1. > >> > > > > Here is patch which renames action_at_recovery_target to > > recovery_target_action everywhere. > Thanks, Looks good to me. > > A couple of things that would be good to document as well in > recovery-config.sgml: > - the fact that pause_at_recovery_target is deprecated. > - the fact that both parameters cannot be used at the same time. > Let's not surprise the users with behaviors they may expect or guess and > document this stuff precisely.. > Btw, you are missing as well the addition of this parameter in recovery.conf.sample (mentioned by Fujii-san upthread). It would be nice to have a description paragraph as well similarly to what is written for pause_at_recovery_target. -- Michael
