pg_start_backup and pg_stop_backup Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Make CheckRequiredParameterValues() depend upon correct
in [PgSql]
|
Prev: providing tokenized version of parsed SQL script
Next: pg_start_backup and pg_stop_backup Re: [HACKERS] Re:[COMMITTERS] pgsql: Make CheckRequiredParameterValues() depend upon correct
From: Robert Haas on 3 May 2010 14:59 On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 2:54 PM, Kevin Grittner <Kevin.Grittner(a)wicourts.gov> wrote: > Simon Riggs <simon(a)2ndQuadrant.com> wrote: >> On Fri, 2010-04-30 at 13:41 -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote: > >>> 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". > > The definitions of "keep" in my dictionary include "to restrain from > removal" and "to retain in one's possession". It defines "minimum" > as "the least quantity assignable, admissible, or possible". It's really both of those things, so we could call it wal_min_keep_segments, but I think an even better name would be bikeshed_segments. ....Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From: Tom Lane on 8 May 2010 22:40 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. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From: Robert Haas on 8 May 2010 23:55
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. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers |