On Fri, 2010-04-30 at 13:41 -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote: > Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > > > Yeah, min_wal_segments or something would make sense. > > 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". min_wal_segments is much clearer, IMHO. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
