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?
...Robert
