On 3/6/19 10:38 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 6:12 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> > wrote: >> I think the idea of it being a generic tunable for assorted behavior >> changes, rather than specific to WAL recycling, is a good one. I'm >> unsure about your proposed name -- maybe "wal_cow_filesystem" is better? > I *really* dislike this. For one thing, it means that users don't > have control over the behaviors individually. For another, the > documentation is now quite imprecise about what the option actually > does, while expecting users to figure out whether those behaviors are > acceptable or preferable in their environment. It lists recycling of > WAL files and zero-filling of those files as examples of behavior > changes, but it does not say that those are the only changes, or even > that they are made in all cases. >
So you want two options, like wal_recycle_files and wal_zero_fill, both defaulting to true? Is there a reasonably use case for turning one off without the other? Alternatively, we could remove the 'for example" wording, which I agree is unfortunate. cheers andrew -- Andrew Dunstan https://www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
