Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > On 3/17/17 16:20, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> I think we would have to extend restore_command with an additional >> placeholder that communicates the segment size, and add a new pg_standby >> option to accept that size somehow. And specifying the size would have >> to be mandatory, for complete robustness. Urgh.
> Another way would be to name the WAL files in a more self-describing > way. For example, instead of Actually, if you're content with having tools obtain this info by examining the WAL files, we shouldn't need to muck with the WAL naming convention (which seems like it would be a horrid mess, anyway --- too much outside code knows that). Tools could get the segment size out of XLogLongPageHeaderData.xlp_seg_size in the first page of the segment. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers