On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 04:25:35PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > On 2020-Jul-01, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > We have the following wal*size GUC settings: > > > > SELECT name FROM pg_settings WHERE name LIKE '%wal%size%'; > > name > > ------------------------ > > max_slot_wal_keep_size > > max_wal_size > > min_wal_size > > wal_block_size > > wal_segment_size > > > > Does wal_keep_size make sense here? > > I think it does. What do you think? > > Are you suggesting that "keep_wal_size" is better, since it's more in > line with min/max? I lean towards no.
No, I am more just asking since I saw wal_keep_size as a special version of wal_size. I don't have a firm opinion. > > (I think it's okay to conceptually separate these three options from > wal_block_size, since that's a compile time option and thus it's an > introspective GUC rather than actual configuration, but as I recall that > argument does not hold for wal_segment_size. But at one point, even that > one was an introspective GUC too.) Yep, just asking. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> https://momjian.us EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com The usefulness of a cup is in its emptiness, Bruce Lee
