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
In response to
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2006-04-04 15:13:38|
|Subject: Re: WIP: splitting BLCKSZ |
|Previous:||From: Andrew Dunstan||Date: 2006-04-04 12:22:38|
|Subject: Re: Suggestion: Which Binary?|