Re: disabling log_rotation_age feature.

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: David G Johnston <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: disabling log_rotation_age feature.
Date: 2014-06-12 16:00:00
Message-ID: 26093.1402588800@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-docs

David G Johnston <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 10:42 AM, Tom Lane-2 [via PostgreSQL] <
> ml-node+s1045698n5807014h58(at)n5(dot)nabble(dot)com> wrote:
>> I wonder if we should round fractions up instead of down in that logic?
>> It might be less surprising for those GUCs where zero is special, and
>> it seems like about a wash for most others.

> I think documenting the behavior better,

I don't. If you have to explain it, it probably needs improvement.

> Green field maybe I'd say yes but given that the new behavior could turn
> features on that are currently off it doesn't seem to be beneficial enough
> to warrant changing.

I don't think that argument holds water either. We routinely make
changes that break old postgresql.conf files. Not in minor updates
of course, but none of this is material for back-patching.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-docs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Johnston 2014-06-12 16:16:07 Re: disabling log_rotation_age feature.
Previous Message David G Johnston 2014-06-12 15:35:16 Re: disabling log_rotation_age feature.