On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 6:05 PM, David Steele <da...@pgmasters.net> wrote: >> 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. > > I did say that, but I thought I had hit on a compromise. > > But, as I originally pointed out the hex characters in the filename are not > aligned correctly for > 8 bits (< 16MB segments) and using different > alignments just made it less consistent.
I don't think I understand what the compromise is. Are you saying we should have one rule for segments < 16MB and another rule for segments > 16MB? I think using two different rules for file naming depending on the segment size will be a negative for both tool authors and ordinary users. > It would be OK if we were willing to drop the 1,2,4,8 segment sizes because > then the alignment would make sense and not change the current 16MB > sequence. Well, that is true. But the thing I'm trying to do here is to keep this patch down to what actually needs to be changed in order to accomplish the original purchase, not squeeze more and more changes into it. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers