Heikki Linnakangas <[email protected]> wrote: > I was not thinking of making it a hard limit. It would be just > like checkpoint_segments from that point of view - if a > checkpoint takes a long time, max_wal_size might still be > exceeded.
Then I suggest we not use exactly that name. I feel quite sure we would get complaints from people if something labeled as "max" was exceeded -- especially if they set that to the actual size of a filesystem dedicated to WAL files. -- Kevin Grittner EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
