Horton
Menu

Re: pg_start_backup and pg_stop_backup Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Make CheckRequiredParameterValues() depend upon correct

Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>

View thread
From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2010-05-09T02:23:43Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On Fri, 2010-04-30 at 12:22 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > (wal_keep_segments can be changed without restarting, right?)
> > > 
> > > Should we allow -1 to mean "keep all segments"?
> > 
> > Why is that not called "max_wal_segments"? wal_keep_segments sounds like
> > its been through Google translate.
> 
> LOL, good one.
> 
> I assume it was done so it would start with 'wal', but I see
> 'max_wal_senders', which doesn't start with 'wal' and would match your
> suggestion exactly.  I think we should either rename 'wal_keep_segments'
> or 'max_wal_senders'.

Uh, did we decide that 'wal_keep_segments' was the best name for this
GUC setting?  I know we shipped beta1 using that name.

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