On 05.06.2013 22:18, Kevin Grittner wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas<hlinnakan...@vmware.com> wrote:
I was not thinking of making it a hard limit. It would be just
like checkpoint_segments from that point of view - if a
checkpoint takes a long time, max_wal_size might still be
exceeded.
Then I suggest we not use exactly that name. I feel quite sure we
would get complaints from people if something labeled as "max" was
exceeded -- especially if they set that to the actual size of a
filesystem dedicated to WAL files.
You're probably right. Any suggestions for a better name?
wal_size_soft_limit?
- Heikki
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
