On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 9:47 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 6:13 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 2:54 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
>> <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>>> Robert Haas wrote:
>>>> I've realized another problem with this patch. standby_keep_segments
>>>> only controls the number of segments that we keep around for purposes
>>>> of streaming: it doesn't affect archiving at all. And of course, a
>>>> standby server based on archiving is every bit as much of a standby
>>>> server as one that uses streaming replication. So at a minimum, the
>>>> name of this GUC is very confusing.
>>>
>>> Hmm, I guess streaming_keep_segments would be more accurate. Somehow
>>> doesn't feel as good otherwise, though. Any other suggestions?
>>
>> I sort of feel like the correct description is something like
>> num_extra_retained_wal_segments, but that's sort of long. The actual
>> behavior is not tied to streaming, although the use case is.
>
> <thinks more>
>
> How about wal_keep_segments?
Here's the patch.
...Robert
