On 08/30/2017 03:16 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2017-08-30 10:14:22 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 10:06 AM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: >>> On 2017-08-30 09:49:14 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: >>>> Do you think that we should worry about wal segment sizes higher than >>>> 2GB? Support for int64 GUCs is not here yet. >>> >>> 1GB will be the limit anyway. >> >> Yeah, but imagine that we'd want to raise that even more up. > > I'm doubtfull of that. But even if, it'd not be hard to GUC support. >
It's not hard - it's just a lot of copy-pasting of infrastructure code. Incidentally, I already have a patch doing that, as we had to add that support to XL, and I can submit it to PostgreSQL. Might save some boring coding. regards -- Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
