Re: increasing the default WAL segment size

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
Cc: David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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: 2017-03-25 15:38:53
Message-ID: c66c1b54-0c5a-07e6-3ea6-9bd2e0abd1c5@2ndquadrant.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 3/24/17 08:18, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Peter,
>
> * Peter Eisentraut (peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com) wrote:
>> There is a function for that.
> [...]
>> There is not a function for that, but there could be one.
>
> I'm not sure you've really considered what you're suggesting here.

Create a set-returning function that returns all the to-be-expected file
names between two LSNs.

> Beyond that, this also bakes in an assumption that we would then require
> access to a database

That is a good point, but then any change to the naming whatsoever will
create trouble. Then we might as well choose which specific trouble.

--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stephen Frost 2017-03-25 15:55:20 Re: Monitoring roles patch
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2017-03-25 15:36:37 Re: increasing the default WAL segment size