Robert Haas wrote: > On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 10:40 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> writes: > >> Uh, did we decide that 'wal_keep_segments' was the best name for this > >> GUC setting? ?I know we shipped beta1 using that name. > > > > I thought min_wal_segments was a reasonable proposal, but it wasn't > > clear if there was consensus or not. > > I think most people thought it was another reasonable choice, but I > think the consensus position is probably something like "it's about > the same" rather than "it's definitely better". We had one or two > people with stronger opinions than that on either side, I believe.
Agreed the current name seems OK. However, was there agreement that wal_keep_segments = -1 should keep all WAL segements? I can see that as useful for cases where you are doing a dump to be transfered to the slave, and not using archive_command. This avoids the need for the "set a huge value" solution. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + None of us is going to be here forever. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
