| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_start_backup and pg_stop_backup Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Make CheckRequiredParameterValues() depend upon correct |
| Date: | 2010-05-02 14:12:25 |
| Message-ID: | 1272809545.4161.31563.camel@ebony |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 2010-04-30 at 13:41 -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2010-05-02 14:15:13 | Re: standbycheck was:(Re: [HACKERS] testing hot standby |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2010-05-02 12:45:45 | TOAST code ignores freespace (was Tweak TOAST code) |