(2013/11/15 19:27), Sawada Masahiko wrote:
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 7:51 PM, Florian Weimer <fwei...@redhat.com> wrote:
On 11/14/2013 07:02 AM, Sawada Masahiko wrote:
I attached patch adds new wal_level 'all'.
Shouldn't this be a separate setting? It's useful for storage which
requires rewriting a partially written sector before it can be read again.
Thank you for comment.
Actually, I had thought to add separate parameter.
I think that he said that if you can proof that amount of WAL is almost same and
without less performance same as before, you might not need to separate
parameter in your patch.
Did you test about amount of WAL size in your patch?
I'd like to know it.
Regards,
--
Mitsumasa KONDO
NTT Open Source Software Center
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
