| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pg_start_backup and pg_stop_backup Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Make CheckRequiredParameterValues() depend upon correct |
| Date: | 2010-05-09 03:55:52 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTikySvoBgd2cUAV2cpmzF5gk-z0qQlpHvyZopfIW@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 10:40 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)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.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2010-05-09 04:08:00 | Re: max_standby_delay considered harmful |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-05-09 03:50:56 | Re: max_standby_delay considered harmful |