Christoph Berg <[email protected]> writes:
> Re: Petr Jelinek 2014-11-25 <[email protected]>
>> >Patch committed.
Before I go and rebase that recovery.conf -> GUC patch on top of
this... is it final?
>>
>> Thanks!
>
> 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.
--
Alex
