On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 3:20 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: >> 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. >> >> Agreed the current name seems OK. However, was there agreement that >> wal_keep_segments = -1 should keep all WAL segements? I can see that as >> useful for cases where you are doing a dump to be transfered to the >> slave, and not using archive_command. This avoids the need for the "set >> a huge value" solution. > > The attached patch allows wal_keep_segments = -1 to keep all segements; > this is particularly useful for taking a base backup, where you need all > the WAL files during startup of the standby. I have documented this > usage in the patch as well. > > I am thinking of applying this after 9.0 beta2 if there is no objection.
+1 for the patch, but why wait until after beta2? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
