On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 8:02 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. >
oops, I think having an option of specifying 'ALL' is good, but that shouldn't be default, because it could have serious performance implications. -- 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: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
