On 3/22/17 3:09 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 1:49 PM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote:
Then perhaps we do need to be thinking of moving this to PG11 instead of
exposing an option that users will start to use which will result in WAL
naming that'll be confusing and inconsistent. I certainly don't think
it's a good idea to move forward exposing an option with a naming scheme
that's agreed to be bad.
One of the reasons to go with the LSN is that we would actually be
maintaining what happens when the WAL files are 16MB in size.
David's initial expectation was this for 64MB WAL files:
000000010000000000000040
000000010000000000000080
0000000100000000000000CO
000000010000000100000000
This is the 1GB sequence, actually, but idea would be the same for 64MB
files.
--
-David
da...@pgmasters.net
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
