Robert Haas <> writes:
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 10:33 PM, 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.

> 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 (
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to