On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 2:35 AM, Tomas Vondra <tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com>

> On 04/06/2017 08:33 PM, David Steele wrote:
>> I'm in favor of 16,64,256,1024.
> I don't see a particular reason for this, TBH. The sweet spots will be
> likely dependent hardware / OS configuration etc. Assuming there actually
> are sweet spots - no one demonstrated that yet.
> Also, I don't see how supporting additional WAL sizes increases chance of
> incompatibility. We already allow that, so either the tools (e.g. backup
> solutions) assume WAL segments are always 16MB (in which case are
> essentially broken) or support valid file sizes (in which case they should
> have no issues with the new ones).
> If we're going to do this, I'm in favor of deciding some reasonable upper
> limit (say, 1GB or 2GB sounds good), and allowing all 2^n values up to that
> limit.

I think the majority consensus is to use all valid values. Since 1GB is
what we have finalized as the upper limit, lets continue with that for now.


Beena Emerson

EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Reply via email to