| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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: | 2010-04-30 18:41:29 |
| Message-ID: | 201004301841.o3UIfT022150@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-04-30 18:42:55 | Re: pg_start_backup and pg_stop_backup Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Make CheckRequiredParameterValues() depend upon correct |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2010-04-30 18:41:18 | Re: pg_start_backup and pg_stop_backup Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Make CheckRequiredParameterValues() depend upon correct |