On 2/11/22 13:32, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 01:18:58PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 12:50 PM Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: >>> On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 12:35:50PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote: >>>> How about something like LOG_AS_CLONE? That makes it clear, I hope, >>>> that we're logging it a different way, but that method of logging it >>>> is different in each case. You'd still have to read the documentation >>>> to find out what it really means, but at least it seems like it points >>>> you more in the right direction. To me, anyway. >>> I think CLONE would be confusing since we don't use that term often, >>> maybe LOG_DB_COPY or LOG_FILE_COPY? >> Yeah, maybe. But it's not clear to me with that kind of naming whether >> TRUE or FALSE would be the existing behavior? One version logs a >> single record for the whole database, and the other logs a record per >> database block. Neither version logs per file. LOG_COPIED_BLOCKS, >> maybe? > Yes, I like BLOCKS more than FILE.
I'm not really sure any single parameter name is going to capture the subtlety involved here. cheers andrew -- Andrew Dunstan EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com