On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 3:11 AM, Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> wrote: > > On 02/04/2015 12:06 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 1:05 PM, Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> wrote: > >> Let me push "max_wal_size" and "min_wal_size" again as our new parameter > >> names, because: > >> > >> * does what it says on the tin > >> * new user friendly > >> * encourages people to express it in MB, not segments > >> * very different from the old name, so people will know it works differently > > > > That's not bad. If we added a hard WAL limit in a future release, how > > would that fit into this naming scheme? > > Well, first, nobody's at present proposing a patch to add a hard limit, > so I'm reluctant to choose non-obvious names to avoid conflict with a > feature nobody may ever write. There's a number of reasons a hard limit > would be difficult and/or undesirable. > > If we did add one, I'd suggest calling it "wal_size_limit" or something > similar.
I think both the names (max_wal_size and wal_size_limit) seems to indicate the same same thing. Few more suggestions: typical_wal_size, wal_size_soft_limit? With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
