Re: pg_start_backup and pg_stop_backup Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Make CheckRequiredParameterValues() depend upon correct - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: pg_start_backup and pg_stop_backup Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Make CheckRequiredParameterValues() depend upon correct
Date
Msg-id AANLkTikySvoBgd2cUAV2cpmzF5gk-z0qQlpHvyZopfIW@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pg_start_backup and pg_stop_backup Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Make CheckRequiredParameterValues() depend upon correct  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: pg_start_backup and pg_stop_backup Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Make CheckRequiredParameterValues() depend upon correct
Re: pg_start_backup and pg_stop_backup Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Make CheckRequiredParameterValues() depend upon correct
List pgsql-hackers
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 10:40 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@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


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: max_standby_delay considered harmful
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: max_standby_delay considered harmful