| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Beena Emerson <memissemerson(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: increasing the default WAL segment size |
| Date: | 2017-01-20 07:34:52 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqToM0aXEUTYKoOQ7BTt2OErfXdWpQZfr84b09sVSkv-ww@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 12:49 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 12:42 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Problems 2-4 actually have to do with a DestReceiver of type
>> DestRemote really, really wanting to have an associated Portal and
>> database connection, so one approach is to create a stripped-down
>> DestReceiver that doesn't care about those things and then passing
>> that to GetPGVariable.
>
> I tried that and it worked out pretty well, so I'm inclined to go with
> this approach. Proposed patches attached. 0001 adds the new
> DestReceiver type, and 0002 is a revised patch to implement the SHOW
> command itself.
>
> Thoughts, comments?
This looks like a sensible approach to me. DestRemoteSimple could be
useful for background workers that are not connected to a database as
well. Isn't there a problem with PGC_REAL parameters?
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2017-01-20 07:43:19 | Re: Too many autovacuum workers spawned during forced auto-vacuum |
| Previous Message | Ashutosh Bapat | 2017-01-20 07:22:51 | Re: pg_hba_file_settings view patch |