| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Mark Wong <markw(at)osdl(dot)org>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: WIP: splitting BLCKSZ |
| Date: | 2006-04-04 15:05:15 |
| Message-ID: | 1144163115.13549.499.camel@localhost.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
On Mon, 2006-04-03 at 19:37 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Mark Wong <markw(at)osdl(dot)org> writes:
> > Here's an updated patch with help from Simon. Once I get a test system
> > going again in the lab I'll start posting some data. I'm planning a
> > combination of block sizes (BLCKSZ and XLOG_BLCKSZ) and number of WAL
> > buffers.
>
> Applied with minor corrections (you missed pg_resetxlog, for one).
Thanks. (That omission was mine, not Mark's.)
On Mon, 2006-04-03 at 18:08 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I can't see any very good reason
> why data block size and xlog block size were ever tied together, and I
> think it'll make the code read better if they're separated.
I see you've changed the control file back from XLOG_BLCKSZ to BLCKSZ; I
wasn't sure which one of those to choose. Perhaps that also should be
changed to PGCONTROL_BLCKSZ to more clearly differentiate that also (but
not put it in pg_config_manual.h?
Best Regards, Simon Riggs
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-04-04 15:13:38 | Re: WIP: splitting BLCKSZ |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2006-04-04 12:22:38 | Re: Suggestion: Which Binary? |