Hello,
On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 9:29 AM, Peter Eisentraut <
peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
Advertising
> On 4/4/17 22:47, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >> Committed first part to allow internal representation change (only).
> >>
> >> No commitment yet to increasing wal-segsize in the way this patch has
> it.
> >>
> >
> > What part of patch you don't like and do you have any suggestions to
> > improve the same?
>
> I think there are still some questions and disagreements about how it
> should behave.
>
The WALfilename - LSN mapping disruption for higher values you mean? Is
there anything else I have missed?
>
> I suggest the next step is to dial up the allowed segment size in
> configure and run some tests about what a reasonable maximum value could
> be. I did a little bit of that, but somewhere around 256 MB, things got
> really slow.
>
Would it be better if just increase the limit to 128MB for now?
In next we can change the WAL file name format and expand the range?
--
Beena Emerson
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company