Re: pg_start_backup and pg_stop_backup Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Make CheckRequiredParameterValues() depend upon correct
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2010-05-31T18:56:42Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas wrote: > On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 10:40 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Bruce Momjian <bruce@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 <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + None of us is going to be here forever. +