On Sat, 2010-05-08 at 23:55 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 10:40 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> writes: > >> Uh, did we decide that 'wal_keep_segments' was the best name for this > >> GUC setting? I know we shipped beta1 using that name. > > > > I thought min_wal_segments was a reasonable proposal, but it wasn't > > clear if there was consensus or not. > > I think most people thought it was another reasonable choice, but I > think the consensus position is probably something like "it's about > the same" rather than "it's definitely better". We had one or two > people with stronger opinions than that on either side, I believe.
It's only a name and not worth a long discussion on. -- 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
