On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 10:14:06AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakan...@vmware.com> writes:
> > I'm not totally satisfied with the name of the GUC, wal_log_hintbits. 
> Me either; at the very least, it's short an underscore: wal_log_hint_bits
> would be more readable.  But how about just "wal_log_hints"?

Is wal_log redundant (two "log"s)?  How about wal_record_hit_bits?

  Bruce Momjian  <br...@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

  + Everyone has their own god. +

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to