On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 3:54 PM, KONDO Mitsumasa <kondo.mitsum...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > (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. >
Thanks! I took it wrong. I think that there are quite a few difference amount of WAL. > Did you test about amount of WAL size in your patch? Not yet. I will do that. Regards, ------- Sawada Masahiko -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
