| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: increasing the default WAL segment size |
| Date: | 2016-08-25 03:41:55 |
| Message-ID: | 4062.1472096515@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> What am I missing?
Maybe nothing. But I'll point out that of the things that can currently
be configured at initdb time, such as LC_COLLATE, there is not one single
one that matters to walsender/walreceiver. If you think there is zero
risk involved in introducing a parameter that will matter at that level,
you have a different concept of risk than I do.
If you'd presented some positive reason why we ought to be taking some
risk here, I'd be on board. But you haven't really. The current default
value for this parameter is nearly old enough to vote; how is it that
we suddenly need to make it easily configurable? Let's just change
the value and be happy.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2016-08-25 03:52:20 | Re: increasing the default WAL segment size |
| Previous Message | Venkata B Nagothi | 2016-08-25 03:38:19 | Re: patch proposal |