| From: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Josh Berkus" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Fujii Masao" <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>,"Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_start_backup and pg_stop_backup Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Make CheckRequiredParameterValues() depend upon correct |
| Date: | 2010-04-30 19:21:35 |
| Message-ID: | 4BDAE76F0200002500031129@gw.wicourts.gov |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> Surely it would confuse people to see they have fewer than
>> min_wal_segments WAL segments.
>
> they wouldn't see that, that's the point of the setting.
I was thinking, in particular, about beginners poking around to see
how things look after an initdb. Perhaps that state is too
transient to matter, but it struck me that you'd have fewer than the
minimum at the precise time a beginner might be likely to take a
look. Unless on startup (and reload?) we created min_wal_segments
WAL segments if they didn't already exist.
-Kevin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-04-30 19:50:03 | Re: COPY is not working |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2010-04-30 19:11:44 | Re: pg_start_backup and pg_stop_backup Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Make CheckRequiredParameterValues() depend upon correct |