Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 1:44 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 2010-04-30 at 12:22 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >>>> (wal_keep_segments can be changed without restarting, right?)
> >>> Should we allow -1 to mean "keep all segments"?
> >> Why is that not called "max_wal_segments"? wal_keep_segments sounds like
> >> its been through Google translate.
> > Because it's not a maximum?
> Yeah, min_wal_segments or something would make sense. It sounds about as
> good or bad as wal_keep_segments to me.
I admit I never liked "keep" but couldn't think of better wording. I do
like the proposed wording better.
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2010-04-30 18:42:55|
|Subject: Re: pg_start_backup and pg_stop_backup Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Make CheckRequiredParameterValues() depend upon correct |
|Previous:||From: Kevin Grittner||Date: 2010-04-30 18:41:18|
|Subject: Re: pg_start_backup and pg_stop_backup Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Make CheckRequiredParameterValues() depend upon correct|