Re: PITR potentially broken in 9.2

Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 2012-12-05 17:24:42 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> So ISTM that we should make recoveryStopsHere() return false while we
>> are inconsistent. Problems solved.

> I prefer the previous (fixed) behaviour where we error out if we reach a
> recovery target before we are consistent:

I agree.  Silently ignoring the user's specification is not good.
(I'm not totally sure about ignoring the pause spec, either, but
there is no good reason to change the established behavior for
the recovery target spec.)

            regards, tom lane