From: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz |
Cc: | jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: max_slot_wal_keep_size comment in postgresql.conf |
Date: | 2020-05-27 07:21:59 |
Message-ID: | 20200527.162159.1771439113156190641.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
At Wed, 27 May 2020 15:11:00 +0900, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote in
> On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 10:46:27AM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> > Agreed. It should be a leftover at the time the unit was changed
> > (before committed) to MB from bytes. The default value makes the
> > confusion worse.
> >
> > Is the following works?
> >
> > #max_slot_wal_keep_size = -1 # in MB; -1 disables
>
> Indeed, better to fix that. The few GUCs using memory units that have
> such a mention in their comments use the actual name of the memory
> unit, and not its abbreviation (see log_temp_files). So it seems more
I was not sure which is preferable. Does that mean we will fix the
following, too?
> #temp_file_limit = -1 # limits per-process temp file space
> # in kB, or -1 for no limit
> logic to me to just use "in megabytes; -1 disables", that would be
> also more consistent with the time-unit-based ones.
I don't oppose to full-spelling. How about the attached?
regards.
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
v2-0001-Change-some-comments-in-postgresql.conf.sample.patch | text/x-patch | 1.4 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Langote | 2020-05-27 07:23:31 | Re: Getting ERROR with FOR UPDATE/SHARE for partitioned table. |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2020-05-27 07:10:53 | Re: race condition when writing pg_control |