On 3/22/17 17:33, David Steele wrote:
> I think if we don't change the default size it's very unlikely I would 
> use alternate WAL segment sizes or recommend that anyone else does, at 
> least in v10.
> I simply don't think it would get the level of testing required to be 
> production worthy

I think we could tweak the test harnesses to run all the tests with
different segment sizes.  That would get pretty good coverage.

More generally, the methodology that we should not add an option unless
we also change the default because the option would otherwise not get
enough testing is a bit dubious.

> and I doubt that most tool writers would be quick to 
> add support for a feature that very few people (if any) use.

I'm not one of those tool writers, although I have written my share of
DBA scripts over the years, but I wonder why those tools would really
care.  They are handed files with predetermined names to archive, and
for restore files with predetermined names are requested back from them.
 What else do they need?  If something is missing that requires them to
parse file names, then maybe that should be added.

Peter Eisentraut              http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to