On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 9:31 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 2:05 AM, Michael Paquier > <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> And here we go. Here is a review as well as a large brush-up for this >> patch. A couple of things: >> - wal_consistency is using a list of RMGRs, at the cost of being >> PGC_POSTMASTER. I'd suggest making it PGC_SUSER, and use a boolean (I >> have been thinking hard about that, and still I don't see the point). >> It is rather easy to for example default it to false, and enable it to >> true to check if a certain code path is correctly exercised or not for >> WAL consistency. Note that this simplification reduces the patch size >> by 100~150 lines. I know, I know, I'd expect some complains about >> that.... > > I don't understand how you can fail to see the point of that. As you > yourself said, this facility generates a ton of WAL. If you're > focusing on one AM, why would you want to be forced to incur the > overhead for every other AM? A good deal has been written about this > upthread already, and just saying "I don't see the point" seems to be > ignoring the explanations already given.
Hehe, I was expecting you to jump on those lines. While looking at the patch I have simplified it first to focus on the core engine of the thing. Adding back this code sounds fine to me as there is a wall of contestation. I offer to do it myself if the effort is the problem. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
