On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 2:54 PM, Kevin Grittner <kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov> wrote: > Simon Riggs <si...@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@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
