| From: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Beena Emerson <memissemerson(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: segment size depending *_wal_size defaults (was increasing the default WAL segment size) |
| Date: | 2017-09-09 22:23:54 |
| Message-ID: | e03b81bf-16aa-64f8-c083-aa02863683e3@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 08/30/2017 03:16 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2017-08-30 10:14:22 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 10:06 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>>> On 2017-08-30 09:49:14 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>>> Do you think that we should worry about wal segment sizes higher than
>>>> 2GB? Support for int64 GUCs is not here yet.
>>>
>>> 1GB will be the limit anyway.
>>
>> Yeah, but imagine that we'd want to raise that even more up.
>
> I'm doubtfull of that. But even if, it'd not be hard to GUC support.
>
It's not hard - it's just a lot of copy-pasting of infrastructure code.
Incidentally, I already have a patch doing that, as we had to add that
support to XL, and I can submit it to PostgreSQL. Might save some boring
coding.
regards
--
Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2017-09-09 23:14:04 | Re: WIP: Separate log file for extension |
| Previous Message | Arthur Zakirov | 2017-09-09 21:33:49 | Re: [PATCH] Generic type subscripting |