| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, harukat(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #18124: PG16 release note document bug in "Add build option to allow testing of small WAL segment sizes" |
| Date: | 2023-09-22 02:08:18 |
| Message-ID: | 837536.1695348498@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> writes:
> On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 6:47 PM Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
>> Uh, it is true that we don't have any segment sizes other than WAL, but
>> I am not sure people would easily know that, so I added WAL so people
>> knew.
> But the commit in question added a new option that can be used to
> control the relation segment size -- not the WAL segment size.
> Obviously, that's what TAKATSUKA-san meant.
Yeah. The release note entry is simply wrong to say it's WAL segment
size. I would also argue that d3b111e32's installation.sgml changes
were poorly worded, because they only say "segment size" which can
easily be misunderstood, just as happened here. Better would be
"relation segment size" or "table segment size".
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2023-09-22 03:11:54 | Re: BUG #17928: Standby fails to decode WAL on termination of primary |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2023-09-22 02:07:50 | Re: BUG #18124: PG16 release note document bug in "Add build option to allow testing of small WAL segment sizes" |