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

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

  1. Fix some mentions to memory units in postgresql.conf.sample