From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, samay sharma <smilingsamay(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Nazir Bilal Yavuz <byavuz81(at)gmail(dot)com>, John Naylor <john(dot)naylor(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Documentation for building with meson |
Date: | 2023-06-12 20:33:16 |
Message-ID: | 64c67eb1-ea8c-c97e-dd98-bc8293640e4b@enterprisedb.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 10.06.23 06:00, Andres Freund wrote:
>> From c5e637a54c2b83e5bd8c4155784d97e82937eb51 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: Samay Sharma<smilingsamay(at)gmail(dot)com>
>> Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2023 16:09:42 -0800
>> Subject: [PATCH v9 2/5] Add data layout options sub-section in installation
>> docs
>>
>> This commit separates out blocksize, segsize and wal_blocksize
>> options into a separate Data layout options sub-section in both
>> the make and meson docs. They were earlier in a miscellaneous
>> section which included several unrelated options. This change
>> also helps reduce the repetition of the warnings that changing
>> these parameters breaks on-disk compatibility.
> I still like this change, but ISTM that the "Data Layout" section should
> follow the "PostgreSQL Features" section, rather than follow "Anti Features",
> "Build Process Details" and "Miscellaneous". I realize some of these are
> reorganized later on, but even then "Build Process Details"
>
> Would anybody mind if I swapped these around?
I don't mind a Data Layout section in principle, but I wonder whether
it's worth changing now. The segsize option is proposed to be turned
into a run-time option (and/or removed). For the WAL block size, I had
previously mentioned, I don't think it is correct that pg_upgrade should
actually care about it. So I wouldn't spend too much time trying to
carefully refactor the notes on the data layout options if we're going
to have to change them around before long again anyway.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joel Jacobson | 2023-06-12 20:36:01 | Re: Do we want a hashset type? |
Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2023-06-12 19:58:56 | Re: Do we want a hashset type? |