On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 6:13 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 2:54 AM, Heikki Linnakangas > <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: >> Robert Haas wrote: >>> I've realized another problem with this patch. standby_keep_segments >>> only controls the number of segments that we keep around for purposes >>> of streaming: it doesn't affect archiving at all. And of course, a >>> standby server based on archiving is every bit as much of a standby >>> server as one that uses streaming replication. So at a minimum, the >>> name of this GUC is very confusing. >> >> Hmm, I guess streaming_keep_segments would be more accurate. Somehow >> doesn't feel as good otherwise, though. Any other suggestions? > > I sort of feel like the correct description is something like > num_extra_retained_wal_segments, but that's sort of long. The actual > behavior is not tied to streaming, although the use case is.
<thinks more> How about wal_keep_segments? ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
