On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 12:54 PM, Markus Nullmeier
wrote:
> On 11/08/16 18:12, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 1:01 AM, Michael Paquier
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 2:33 PM, Kuntal Ghosh
>>> wrote:
I've attached a patch to fix this.
>>> Good catch. Interesting copy-pas
On 11/08/16 18:12, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 1:01 AM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 2:33 PM, Kuntal Ghosh
>> wrote:
>>> I've attached a patch to fix this.
>> Good catch. Interesting copy-pasto from 88e9823.
> Committed.
Hmm, somehow this fix (60379f66c8 f
On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 1:01 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 2:33 PM, Kuntal Ghosh
> wrote:
>> Either the comment is wrongly written or the check for overflow
>> condition has to be fixed. Assuming the overflow check condition to be
>> erroneous, I've attached a patch to fix t
On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 2:33 PM, Kuntal Ghosh wrote:
> Either the comment is wrongly written or the check for overflow
> condition has to be fixed. Assuming the overflow check condition to be
> erroneous, I've attached a patch to fix this.
Good catch. Interesting copy-pasto from 88e9823.
--
Micha
Hi all,
Although we restrict the WAL segment size to 64 MB as upper limit, the
following piece of code in guc.c (line 715) seems confusing to me.
#if XLOG_SEG_SIZE < (1024*1024) || XLOG_BLCKSZ > (1024*1024*1024)
#error XLOG_SEG_SIZE must be between 1MB and 1GB
#endif
Either the comment is wrongl
