On 4 April 2017 at 22:47, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 3:36 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> On 27 March 2017 at 15:36, Beena Emerson <memissemer...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> 02-increase-max-wal-segsize.patch - Increases the wal-segsize and changes >>> the internal representation of max_wal_size and min_wal_size to mb. >> >> 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?
The only part of the patch uncommitted was related to choice of WAL file size in the config file. I've already made suggestions on that upthread. I'm now looking at patch 03-modify-tools.patch * Peter's "lack of tests" comment still applies * I think we should remove pg_standby in this release, so we don't have to care about it * If we change pg_resetwal then it should allow changing XLogSegSize also * "coulnot access the archive location" 03 looks mostly OK 04 is much more of a mess * Lots of comments and notes pre-judge what the limits and configurability are, so its hard to commit the patches without committing to the basic assumptions. Please look at removing all assumptions about what the values/options are, so we can change them later 05 adds various tests but I don't think adds enough value to commit -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers