On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 10:40 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> writes: >> Uh, did we decide that 'wal_keep_segments' was the best name for this >> GUC setting? I know we shipped beta1 using that name. > > I thought min_wal_segments was a reasonable proposal, but it wasn't > clear if there was consensus or not.
I think most people thought it was another reasonable choice, but I think the consensus position is probably something like "it's about the same" rather than "it's definitely better". We had one or two people with stronger opinions than that on either side, I believe. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
