| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker <ilmari(at)ilmari(dot)org>, Jim Mlodgenski <jimmy76(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Large files for relations |
| Date: | 2023-05-30 11:20:54 |
| Message-ID: | 51392a30-1e86-efb4-41e5-6e52d423b32d@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 28.05.23 02:48, Thomas Munro wrote:
> Another potential option name would be --segsize, if we think we're
> going to use this for temp files too eventually.
>
> Maybe it's not so beautiful to have that global variable
> rel_segment_size (which replaces REL_SEGSIZE everywhere). Another
> idea would be to make it static in md.c and call smgrsetsegmentsize(),
> or something like that.
I think one way to look at this is that the segment size is a
configuration property of the md.c smgr. I have been thinking a bit
about how smgr-level configuration could look. You can't use a catalog
table, but we also can't have smgr plugins get space in pg_control.
Anyway, I'm not asking you to design this now. A global variable via
pg_control seems fine for now. But it wouldn't be an smgr API call, I
think.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mayer, Nicholas J | 2023-05-30 13:48:10 | Question - Does PostgreSQL have an Evaluation Assurance Level? |
| Previous Message | vignesh C | 2023-05-30 11:19:18 | Re: Support logical replication of DDLs |