Compiling PostgreSQL for WIndows with 16kb blocksize

From: Yannick Collette <yannickcollette(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Compiling PostgreSQL for WIndows with 16kb blocksize
Date: 2022-01-19 17:07:50
Message-ID: CADTm7M8nPDxXaWA0PpQrb2McbPkJycjxv_r2L53yYsq2qEkf1A@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hello,

For test purposes I need to compile PostgreSQL 14.1 using a 16kb blocksize.

CFLAGS="-D WINVER=0x0600 -D _WIN32_WINNT=0x0600" LIBS="-ladvapi32"
./configure --host=x86_64-w64-mingw32 --with-blocksize=16
--with-wal-blocksize=16 --with-openssl --with-libxml
--prefix=/c/postgresql/pg14/ 2>&1 | tee configure.log

Below is the beginning of my configure.log, with no errors: make and make
install ok also.

configure: loading site script /etc/config.site
checking build system type... x86_64-pc-msys
checking host system type... x86_64-w64-mingw32
checking which template to use... win32
checking whether NLS is wanted... no
checking for default port number... 5432
checking for block size... 16kB
checking for segment size... 1GB
checking for WAL block size... 16kB
checking for x86_64-w64-mingw32-gcc... x86_64-w64-mingw32-gcc
checking whether the C compiler works... yes
...

DB created successfully using initdb.

Unfortunately my blocksize is still 8kb when checking in DB.

postgres=# show block_size;
block_size
------------
8192
(1 row)

postgres=# select version();
version
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PostgreSQL 14.1 on x86_64-w64-mingw32, compiled by
x86_64-w64-mingw32-gcc.exe (Rev9, Built by MSYS2 project) 10.2.0, 64-bit
(1 row)

Is there anything additional step I'm missing?

Thanks in advance for your help!
Yannick

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2022-01-19 17:14:21 Re: slowest tap tests - split or accelerate?
Previous Message Andres Freund 2022-01-19 17:03:30 Re: slowest tap tests - split or accelerate?