From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] AdvanceXLInsertBuffer vs. WAL segment compressibility |
Date: | 2018-03-30 23:57:57 |
Message-ID: | 20180330235757.GA1394@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 07:11:02PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net> writes:
> > On 03/30/18 16:21, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I did not like the proposed test case too much, particularly not its
> >> undocumented API change for check_pg_config,
>
> > Other than that API change, was there something the test case could have
> > done differently to make you like it more?
>
> Well, if that'd been properly documented I'd probably have pushed it
> without complaint. But I did wonder whether it could've been folded
> into one of the existing tests of pg_switch_wal(). This doesn't seem
> like a property worth spending a lot of cycles on testing.
Sorry for coming in late. I have been busy doing some net-archeology to
look for tools using XLP_BKP_REMOVABLE. One is pglesslog that we
already know about. However I have to be honest, I have not been able
to find its source code, nor have I seen another tool making use of
XLP_BKP_REMOVABLE. Could we just remove the flag then?
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Chapman Flack | 2018-03-31 00:07:31 | Re: [HACKERS] AdvanceXLInsertBuffer vs. WAL segment compressibility |
Previous Message | Craig Ringer | 2018-03-30 23:34:32 | Re: Feature Request - DDL deployment with logical replication |