| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Jakub Wartak <jakub(dot)wartak(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: trying again to get incremental backup |
| Date: | 2023-12-18 18:39:33 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoaU-A+EatURQ7Zc=6ixqg2stDo91Hz8-kGGGB2G=nXpaQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 6:58 AM Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> wrote:
> A separate bikeshedding topic: The GUC "summarize_wal", could that be
> "wal_something" instead? (wal_summarize? wal_summarizer?) It would be
> nice if these settings names group together a bit, both with existing
> wal_* ones and also with the new ones you are adding
> (wal_summary_keep_time).
Yeah, this is highly debatable, so bikeshed away. IMHO, the question
here is whether we care more about (1) having the name of the GUC
sound nice grammatically or (2) having the GUC begin with the same
string as other, related GUCs. I think that Tom Lane tends to prefer
the former, and probably some other people do too, while some other
people tend to prefer the latter. Ideally it would be possible to
satisfy both goals at once here, but everything I thought about that
started with "wal" sounded too awkward for me to like it; hence the
current choice of name. But if there's consensus on something else, so
be it.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2023-12-18 18:58:17 | Re: trying again to get incremental backup |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2023-12-18 18:27:42 | Re: trying again to get incremental backup |