Re: SLRU limits

Is this a TODO?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom Lane wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> > On 09.06.2011 15:50, Robert Haas wrote:
> >> And I would guess that there's a lot more interest in raising BLCKSZ
> >> than lowering it. It might not be a bad idea to adopt the fix you
> >> propose anyway, but it doesn't seem urgent.
>
> > I guess we could fix pg_subtrans by not allowing BLCKSZ < 8k. That
> > leaves the problem with pg_serial. Kevin has already worked around, but
> > I'm not very happy with that workaround.
>
> > If we don't want to change it wholesale, one option would be to support
> > different lengths of filenames in slru.c for different slrus. At a quick
> > glance, it seems pretty easy. That would allow keeping clog unchanged -
> > that's the one that's most likely to have unforeseen consequences if
> > changed. pg_subtrans and pg_serial are more ephemeral, they don't need
> > to be retained over shutdown, so they seem less likely to cause trouble.
> > That seems like the best option to me.
>
> I agree with Robert that this is completely not urgent. If you want to
> fool with it for 9.2, fine, but let's not destabilize 9.1 for it.
>
> (BTW, while I've not looked at the SLRU code in several years, I'm quite
> unconvinced that this is only a matter of filename lengths.)
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +