Re: Recovery Test Framework

From: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Greg Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Recovery Test Framework
Date: 2009-01-13 09:44:12
Message-ID: 496C626C.9000903@hagander.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc> writes:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> writes:
>>>> 1. Remove the messages size limits on -hackers. They serve no useful
>>>> purpose, and they interfere with our development process.
>>> Agreed, or at least boost it up a good bit more.
>
>> the question really is how much "a bit more" is - right now the limit is
>> 100000 characters which limits us to ~70KB of attachments (around the
>> size of the Hot-standby patch if bzip2 compressed).
>
>> The SE-Postgres patch for example is ~650KB uncompressed - if we want to
>> cope with uncompressed patches that large we would have to increase
>> the current limit by a factor of 10 at least.
>
> I feel no need to encourage people to send huge patches uncompressed ;-)
>
> gzip normally gets at least 3x or 4x on large diffs. So a limit around
> 250K ought to be enough.

Given this, I've increased the size to 1Mb. Let's see how that works out.

//Magnus

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Magnus Hagander 2009-01-13 09:48:07 Re: pg_restore -1 vs -C and -c
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2009-01-13 09:22:04 Re: [BUGS] Status of issue 4593