From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: increasing the default WAL segment size |
Date: | 2016-08-26 03:54:29 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1LGnMnHbYxEB35TgR34PYLG7S1K_uiKNYX5iqgo60i=8A@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 9:04 AM, Michael Paquier
<michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 12:25 PM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> If we change the default to 64MB, then I think it won't allow to use
>> old databases as-is because we store it in pg_control (I think one
>> will get below error [1] for old databases, if we just change default
>> and don't do anything else). Do you have way to address it or you
>> think it is okay?
>
> Those would still be able to work with ./configure
> --with-wal-segsize=16, so that's not really an issue.
>
Right, but do we need suggest users to do so? The question/point was
if we deliver server with default value as 64MB, then it won't allow
to start old database.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2016-08-26 03:58:14 | Re: Renaming of pg_xlog and pg_clog |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2016-08-26 03:37:06 | Re: increasing the default WAL segment size |