Re: Are we really using 23 bytes on most machines?

postgres=# select pg_column_size( row() ); > > pg_column_size > > > 24 Yes, but it is MAXALIGNED, which is documented. So the value you see is correct and matches the docs. -- Simon Riggshttp://www.EnterpriseDB.com/

Re: Handling of quantity in recursive query example

- wheel| 4 bolt | 5 (2 rows) Proposed change sub_part | total_quantity --+ wheel| 4 bolt | 20 Doc patch attached. -- Simon Riggshttp://www.EnterpriseDB.com/ parts.sql Description: Binary data recursive_correction.v1.patch Description: Binary data

Re: wal_init_zero and wal_recycle

. They should be located > in "19.5. Write Ahead Log"/"19.5.1. Settings". Thought? > +1 Why are there two settings for the same thing (COW support)? Would we really want to allow setting one but not the other? -- Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ <http://www.2ndquadrant.com/> Mission Critical Databases

Re: 【memory barrier】Should we update the README.barrier description.

nd use it Yes, those docs can change now. > in some cases we > have not use the lock. > Which code does not use the lock? -- Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ <http://www.2ndquadrant.com/> Mission Critical Databases

Re: Documentation: 21.5. Default Roles

ng" doc patches to head only, someone > complains that it should be backpatched, so I did that in this case. If > we want to change that idea, we need to agree on the criteria. > True, but it's not a wording patch, you're entirely renaming a feature. I agree with the chang

Re: Is this still accurate?

that. Clusters in Petabyte range? We need to be able to substantiate that with publicly documented cases. They also need to be pure PostgreSQL, not "with added tech", no? Also, I can't see that the 1.6 TB per row is accurate, because that would mean 1600 toast pointers at 20 b