Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > On Wed, 2010-04-28 at 10:43 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: >> * renamed wal_mode to wal_level
> I'm wondering whether this should be a list rather than an enum? If we > add something in the future that adds more info to WAL but doesn't fit > the one-dimensional model this implements then we could be in trouble. > Should this be > e.g. wal_xxxx = feature2, feature3 > e.g. wal_xxxx = feature3 > e.g. wal_xxxx = feature1 I'm a bit suspicious of going in this direction, mainly because DateStyle has been such a PITA over the years. It's not always obvious to users whether adding or removing an item in a list causes something to turn on or off. In any case, the project's expectations for forward compatibility of postgresql.conf settings have always been very low. I don't think we should try to design wal_mode to solve future problems, just the ones we are faced with right now. If it gets changed to look completely different in some future version, that's not a problem. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers