Re: Redesigning checkpoint_segments

On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 3:11 AM, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On 02/04/2015 12:06 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 1:05 PM, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
> >> Let me push "max_wal_size" and "min_wal_size" again as our new
parameter
> >> names, because:
> >>
> >> * does what it says on the tin
> >> * new user friendly
> >> * encourages people to express it in MB, not segments
> >> * very different from the old name, so people will know it works
differently
> >
> > That's not bad. If we added a hard WAL limit in a future release, how
> > would that fit into this naming scheme?
>
> Well, first, nobody's at present proposing a patch to add a hard limit,
> so I'm reluctant to choose non-obvious names to avoid conflict with a
> feature nobody may ever write. There's a number of reasons a hard limit
> would be difficult and/or undesirable.
>
> If we did add one, I'd suggest calling it "wal_size_limit" or something
> similar.

I think both the names (max_wal_size and wal_size_limit) seems to
indicate the same same thing. Few more suggestions:
typical_wal_size, wal_size_soft_limit?

With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com