Re: max_slot_wal_keep_size comment in postgresql.conf
Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>
From: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>
To: michael@paquier.xyz
Cc: jeff.janes@gmail.com, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2020-05-27T07:21:59Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Attachments
- v2-0001-Change-some-comments-in-postgresql.conf.sample.patch (text/x-patch)
At Wed, 27 May 2020 15:11:00 +0900, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote in > On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 10:46:27AM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote: > > Agreed. It should be a leftover at the time the unit was changed > > (before committed) to MB from bytes. The default value makes the > > confusion worse. > > > > Is the following works? > > > > #max_slot_wal_keep_size = -1 # in MB; -1 disables > > Indeed, better to fix that. The few GUCs using memory units that have > such a mention in their comments use the actual name of the memory > unit, and not its abbreviation (see log_temp_files). So it seems more I was not sure which is preferable. Does that mean we will fix the following, too? > #temp_file_limit = -1 # limits per-process temp file space > # in kB, or -1 for no limit > logic to me to just use "in megabytes; -1 disables", that would be > also more consistent with the time-unit-based ones. I don't oppose to full-spelling. How about the attached? regards. -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center
Commits
-
Fix some mentions to memory units in postgresql.conf.sample
- 55ca50deb8ff 13.0 landed