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: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
