On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 10:23 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 8:05 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
>> <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>>> * How about naming the parameter wal_level instead of wal_mode? That
>>> would better convey that the higher levels add stuff on top of the lower
>>> levels, instead of having different modes that are somehow mutually
>>> exclusive.
>
>> That works for me.
>
> What happens in the future if we have more options and they don't fall
> into a neat superset order?
We'll decide on the appropriate solution based on whatever our needs
are at that time?
...Robert
