Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2016-08-24 22:33:49 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> ... but I think this is just folly. You'd have to do major amounts
>> of work to keep, eg, slave servers on the same page as the master
>> about what the segment size is.
> Don't think it'd actually be all that complicated, we already verify
> the compatibility of some things. But I'm doubtful it's worth it, and
> I'm also rather doubtful that it's actually without overhead.
My point is basically that it'll introduce failure modes that we don't
currently concern ourselves with. Yes, you can do configure
--with-wal-segsize, but it's on your own head whether the resulting build
will interoperate with anything else --- and I'm quite sure nobody tests,
eg, walsender or walreceiver to see if they fail sanely in such cases.
I don't think we'd get to take such a laissez-faire position with respect
to an initdb option.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
