On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 7:02 PM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 27 August 2016 at 12:09, Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh.2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> * wal_consistency_mask = 511  /* Enable consistency check mask bit*/
>>> What does this mean? (No docs)
>> I was using this parameter as a masking integer to indicate the
>> operations(rmgr list) for which we need this feature to be enabled.
>> Since, this could be confusing, I've changed it accordingly so that it
>> accepts a list of rmgrIDs. (suggested by Michael, Amit and Robert)
> Why would we want that?

It would be easier to test and develop the various modules separately.
As an example, if we develop a new AM which needs WAL facility or
adding WAL capability to an existing system (say Hash Index), we can
just test that module, rather than whole system.  I think it can help
us in narrowing down the problem, if we have facility to enable it at
RMGR ID level.  Having said that, I think this must have the facility
to enable it for all the RMGR ID's (say ALL) and probably that should
be default.

With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to