| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Beena Emerson <memissemerson(at)gmail(dot)com>, tushar <tushar(dot)ahuja(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Prabhat Sahu <prabhat(dot)sahu(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Ashutosh Sharma <ashu(dot)coek88(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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: | 2017-03-22 19:45:52 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmoa25Sd9Ofuo4TiA2Tp+pco4PMTCwGq-LKiGCibKXvEJdA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 3:24 PM, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> wrote:
>> One of the reasons to go with the LSN is that we would actually be
>> maintaining what happens when the WAL files are 16MB in size.
>>
>> David's initial expectation was this for 64MB WAL files:
>>
>> 000000010000000000000040
>> 000000010000000000000080
>> 0000000100000000000000CO
>> 000000010000000100000000
>
>
> This is the 1GB sequence, actually, but idea would be the same for 64MB
> files.
Wait, really? I thought you abandoned this approach because there's
then no principled way to handle WAL segments of less than the default
size.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-03-22 19:47:26 | Re: Partition-wise join for join between (declaratively) partitioned tables |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2017-03-22 19:39:45 | Re: increasing the default WAL segment size |