| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com>, "'Pg Hackers'" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Regarding WAL Format Changes |
| Date: | 2012-06-27 16:16:15 |
| Message-ID: | 2066.1340813775@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
>> So is there any particular reason for it?
> Not really. There are several messages that use "log file %s", and also
> several places that use "log segment %s" Should we make it consistent
> and use either "log segment" or "log file" everywhere?
+1 for uniformity. I think I'd vote for using "file" and eliminating
the "segment" terminology altogether, but the other direction would be
okay too, and might require fewer changes.
IIRC, in the original coding "segment" meant 16MB worth of WAL while
"file" was sometimes used to denote 4GB worth (ie, the boundaries where
we had to increment the high half of the LSN struct). Now that 4GB
boundaries are not special, there's no reason to retain the "file"
concept or terminology.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2012-06-27 17:24:05 | Re: [ADMIN] pg_basebackup blocking all queries with horrible performance |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2012-06-27 16:13:42 | Re: Regarding WAL Format Changes |