On 2/11/22 13:32, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 01:18:58PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 12:50 PM Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 12:35:50PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>>>> How about something like LOG_AS_CLONE? That makes it clear, I hope,
>>>> that we're logging it a different way, but that method of logging it
>>>> is different in each case. You'd still have to read the documentation
>>>> to find out what it really means, but at least it seems like it points
>>>> you more in the right direction. To me, anyway.
>>> I think CLONE would be confusing since we don't use that term often,
>>> maybe LOG_DB_COPY or LOG_FILE_COPY?
>> Yeah, maybe. But it's not clear to me with that kind of naming whether
>> TRUE or FALSE would be the existing behavior? One version logs a
>> single record for the whole database, and the other logs a record per
>> database block. Neither version logs per file. LOG_COPIED_BLOCKS,
>> maybe?
> Yes, I like BLOCKS more than FILE.
I'm not really sure any single parameter name is going to capture the
subtlety involved here.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
