On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 3:24 PM, David Steele <da...@pgmasters.net> wrote: >> 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.
Wait, really? I thought you abandoned this approach because there's then no principled way to handle WAL segments of less than the default size. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers