On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 2:35 AM, Tomas Vondra <tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 04/06/2017 08:33 PM, David Steele wrote: >> >> >> I'm in favor of 16,64,256,1024. >> >> > I don't see a particular reason for this, TBH. The sweet spots will be > likely dependent hardware / OS configuration etc. Assuming there actually > are sweet spots - no one demonstrated that yet. > > Also, I don't see how supporting additional WAL sizes increases chance of > incompatibility. We already allow that, so either the tools (e.g. backup > solutions) assume WAL segments are always 16MB (in which case are > essentially broken) or support valid file sizes (in which case they should > have no issues with the new ones). > > If we're going to do this, I'm in favor of deciding some reasonable upper > limit (say, 1GB or 2GB sounds good), and allowing all 2^n values up to that > limit. I think the majority consensus is to use all valid values. Since 1GB is what we have finalized as the upper limit, lets continue with that for now. -- Beena Emerson EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
