On 05.06.2013 22:18, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> 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.
You're probably right. Any suggestions for a better name?
wal_size_soft_limit?
- Heikki
