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 wrote:
>>> On 2017-08-30 09:49:14 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
Do you think that we should worry about wal segment
Hi,
To make it clear: I don't have a strong opinion on these, I'm happy
enough to commit the patch as is, minus one unrelated change. I just
think it should be discussed.
On 2017-08-30 07:01:54 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 8/30/17 00:45, Andres Freund wrote:
> > 1) Currently the default
On 8/30/17 00:45, Andres Freund wrote:
> 1) Currently the default for {min,max}_wal_size depends on the segment
>size. Given that the segment size is about to be configurable, that
>seems confusing.
On the one hand, I agree that it seems confusing and unnecessary to vary
this with the
On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 6:45 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2017-08-30 12:52:26 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 11:20 AM, Peter Eisentraut
> > wrote:
> > > On 8/29/17 20:36, Andres Freund wrote:
> > >> So the
On 2017-08-30 12:52:26 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 11:20 AM, Peter Eisentraut
> wrote:
> > On 8/29/17 20:36, Andres Freund wrote:
> >> So the question is whether we want {max,min}_wal_size be sized in
> >> multiples of segment sizes or
On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 11:20 AM, Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> On 8/29/17 20:36, Andres Freund wrote:
>> So the question is whether we want {max,min}_wal_size be sized in
>> multiples of segment sizes or as a proper byte size. I'm leaning
>> towards the latter.
>
>
On 8/29/17 20:36, Andres Freund wrote:
> So the question is whether we want {max,min}_wal_size be sized in
> multiples of segment sizes or as a proper byte size. I'm leaning
> towards the latter.
I'm not sure what the question is or what its impact would be.
--
Peter Eisentraut
On 2017-08-30 10:14:22 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 10:06 AM, Andres Freund 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
On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 10:06 AM, Andres Freund 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
On 2017-08-30 09:49:14 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 9:36 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > So the question is whether we want {max,min}_wal_size be sized in
> > multiples of segment sizes or as a proper byte size. I'm leaning
> > towards the latter.
>
>
On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 9:36 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> So the question is whether we want {max,min}_wal_size be sized in
> multiples of segment sizes or as a proper byte size. I'm leaning
> towards the latter.
Logically in the code it is just a matter of adjusting
11 matches
Mail list logo