Peter, * Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > On 3/24/17 08:18, Stephen Frost wrote: > > Beyond that, this also bakes in an assumption that we would then require > > access to a database > > That is a good point, but then any change to the naming whatsoever will > create trouble. Then we might as well choose which specific trouble.
Right, and I'd rather we work that out before we start encouraging users to change their WAL segment size, which is what this patch will do. Personally, I'm alright with the patch David has produced, which is pretty small, maintains the same names when 16MB segments are used, and is pretty straight-forward to reason about. I do think it'll need added documentation to clarify how WAL segment names are calculated and perhaps another function which returns the size of WAL segments on a given cluster (I don't think we have that..?), and, ideally, added regression tests or buildfarm animals which try different sizes. On the other hand, I don't have any particular issue with the naming scheme you proposed up-thread, which uses proper separators between the components of a WAL filename, but that would change what happens with 16MB WAL segments today. I'm still of the opinion that we should be changing the default to 64MB for WAL segments. Thanks! Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
