On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 1:49 PM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 1:22 PM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: >> > To put this in another light, had this issue been brought up post >> > feature-freeze, your definition would mean that we would only have the >> > option to either revert the patch entirely or to live with the poor >> > naming scheme. >> >> Yeah, and I absolutely agree with that. In fact, I think it's >> *already* past the time when we should be considering the changes you >> want. > > Then perhaps we do need to be thinking of moving this to PG11 instead of > exposing an option that users will start to use which will result in WAL > naming that'll be confusing and inconsistent. I certainly don't think > it's a good idea to move forward exposing an option with a naming scheme > that's agreed to be bad.
I'm not sure there is any such agreement. I agree that the naming scheme for WAL files probably isn't the greatest and that David's proposal is probably better, but we've had that naming scheme for many years, and I don't accept that making a previously-configure-time option initdb-time means that it's suddenly necessary to break everything for people who continue to use a 16MB WAL size. I really think that is very unlikely to be a majority position, no matter how firmly you and David hold to it. It is possible that a majority of people will agree that such a change should be made, but it seems very remote that a majority of people will agree that it has to (or even should be) the same commit that improves the configurability. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers