| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Beena Emerson <memissemerson(at)gmail(dot)com>, tushar <tushar(dot)ahuja(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Prabhat Sahu <prabhat(dot)sahu(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Ashutosh Sharma <ashu(dot)coek88(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: increasing the default WAL segment size |
| Date: | 2017-03-22 17:49:33 |
| Message-ID: | 20170322174933.GW9812@tamriel.snowman.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert,
* Robert Haas (robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 1:22 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
> > To put this in another light, had this issue been brought up post
> > feature-freeze, your definition would mean that we would only have the
> > option to either revert the patch entirely or to live with the poor
> > naming scheme.
>
> Yeah, and I absolutely agree with that. In fact, I think it's
> *already* past the time when we should be considering the changes you
> want.
Then perhaps we do need to be thinking of moving this to PG11 instead of
exposing an option that users will start to use which will result in WAL
naming that'll be confusing and inconsistent. I certainly don't think
it's a good idea to move forward exposing an option with a naming scheme
that's agreed to be bad.
Thanks!
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David G. Johnston | 2017-03-22 18:03:13 | Re: increasing the default WAL segment size |
| Previous Message | Teodor Sigaev | 2017-03-22 17:48:17 | Re: Review: GIN non-intrusive vacuum of posting tree |