| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pg_start_backup and pg_stop_backup Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Make CheckRequiredParameterValues() depend upon correct |
| Date: | 2010-05-09 10:33:56 |
| Message-ID: | 1273401236.3936.587.camel@ebony |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, 2010-05-08 at 23:55 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 10:40 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> >> Uh, did we decide that 'wal_keep_segments' was the best name for this
> >> GUC setting? I know we shipped beta1 using that name.
> >
> > I thought min_wal_segments was a reasonable proposal, but it wasn't
> > clear if there was consensus or not.
>
> I think most people thought it was another reasonable choice, but I
> think the consensus position is probably something like "it's about
> the same" rather than "it's definitely better". We had one or two
> people with stronger opinions than that on either side, I believe.
It's only a name and not worth a long discussion on.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2010-05-09 11:40:27 | Re: max_standby_delay considered harmful |
| Previous Message | Ian Barwick | 2010-05-09 08:48:27 | 9.0b1: "ERROR: btree index keys must be ordered by attribute" |