On Wed, 2010-04-28 at 10:43 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > * renamed wal_mode to wal_level
I'm wondering whether this should be a list rather than an enum? If we add something in the future that adds more info to WAL but doesn't fit the one-dimensional model this implements then we could be in trouble. Should this be e.g. wal_xxxx = feature2, feature3 e.g. wal_xxxx = feature3 e.g. wal_xxxx = feature1 recognising that some features require other features, so as an example feature2 requires and implies feature1. The word "level" implies a one-dimensionality that "mode" did not and I feel a little uncertain about that term. Other words: attributes, features, contents, info, options. Hmm, wal_options sounds OK. Anyway, just throwing out some ideas to make sure we're doing the right thing with this. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
