From: Bruce Momjian on 2 Jun 2010 15:20 Bruce Momjian wrote: > Robert Haas wrote: > > On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 10:40 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(a)sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > > Bruce Momjian <bruce(a)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. The attached patch allows wal_keep_segments = -1 to keep all segements; this is particularly useful for taking a base backup, where you need all the WAL files during startup of the standby. I have documented this usage in the patch as well. I am thinking of applying this after 9.0 beta2 if there is no objection. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce(a)momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + None of us is going to be here forever. +
|
Pages: 1 Prev: "caught_up" status in walsender Next: Allow wal_keep_segments to keep all segments |