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. +