On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 9:47 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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?
Here's the patch. ...Robert
wal_keep_segments.patch
Description: Binary data
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
