On Fri, 2010-04-30 at 13:41 -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>
> > Yeah, min_wal_segments or something would make sense.
>
> Surely it would confuse people to see they have fewer than
> min_wal_segments WAL segments.
That does sound like a reasonable argument, though it also applies to
wal_keep_segments, so isn't an argument either way. The user will be
equally confused to see fewer WAL files than they have asked to "keep".
min_wal_segments is much clearer, IMHO.
-- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com