Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas@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.
--
Kevin Grittner
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
