On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 11:18 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 2:50 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
>>> We're already using "file" to mean something different *internally*,
>>> don't we? And since pg_controldata shows fairly internal information,
>>> I'm not sure this is the best idea.
>>> Maybe compromise and call it "segment file" - that is both easier to
>>> understand than segment, and not actually using a term that means
>>> something else...
>> It's also kind of wordy. I think "file" is fine.
> +1 for "file". I think the internal usage of "file" to mean "roughly
> 4GB worth of WAL" is going to go away soon anyway, as there won't be
> much reason to worry about the concept once LSN arithmetic is 64-bit.
Agreed. This would mean that the following lots of log messages need to
be changed after 64-bit LSN will have been committed.
errmsg("could not fdatasync log file %u, segment %u: %m",
Anyway, should I add this patch into the next CF? Or is anyone planning
to commit the patch for 9.2?
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Fujii Masao||Date: 2012-03-27 11:13:34|
|Subject: Re: PATCH: pg_basebackup (missing exit on error)|
|Previous:||From: Albe Laurenz||Date: 2012-03-27 09:36:54|
|Subject: Re: pgsql_fdw, FDW for PostgreSQL server|