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
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 |