Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 10:33 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> 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.
> I said an initdb-time parameter, meaning not capable of being changed > within the lifetime of the cluster. So I don't see how the slave > servers would get out of sync? The point is that that now becomes something to worry about. I do not think I have to exhibit a live bug within five minutes' thought before saying that it's a risk area. It's something that we simply have not worried about before, and IME that generally means there's some squishy things there. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers