Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On Fri, 2010-04-30 at 13:41 -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote: >> Surely it would confuse people to see they have fewer than >> min_wal_segments WAL segments. > > That does sound like a reasonable argument, though it also applies > to wal_keep_segments, so isn't an argument either way. The user > will be equally confused to see fewer WAL files than they have > asked to "keep". The definitions of "keep" in my dictionary include "to restrain from removal" and "to retain in one's possession". It defines "minimum" as "the least quantity assignable, admissible, or possible". If I'm understanding the semantics of this GUC (which I'll grant is not a sure thing), "keep" does a better job of conveying the meaning, since fewer than that are initially possible, but at least that many will be *kept* once they exist. I'm sure I'll figure it out at need, but the assertions that "minimum" more clearly defines the purpose is shaking *my* confidence that I understand what the GUC is for. -Kevin
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
