* David Steele (da...@pgmasters.net) wrote: > On 3/22/17 3:09 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > >* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: > >>On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 1:49 PM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > >>>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. > >> > > > >One of the reasons to go with the LSN is that we would actually be > >maintaining what happens when the WAL files are 16MB in size. > > > >David's initial expectation was this for 64MB WAL files: > > > >000000010000000000000040 > >000000010000000000000080 > >0000000100000000000000CO > >000000010000000100000000 > > This is the 1GB sequence, actually, but idea would be the same for > 64MB files.
Ah, right, sorry. Thanks! Stephen
Description: Digital signature