Re: [GENERAL] Dynamically-sized WAL files

2009/11/10 Simon Riggs : > On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 09:39 +, Thom Brown wrote: > >> Is there a reason we require fixed-size WAL files? > > Currently we reuse the files, which is much easier with fixed size > files. > > It might have been interesting once to pass the size at log switch > through to

Re: [GENERAL] Dynamically-sized WAL files

On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 09:39 +, Thom Brown wrote: > Is there a reason we require fixed-size WAL files? Currently we reuse the files, which is much easier with fixed size files. It might have been interesting once to pass the size at log switch through to the archiver as a parameter, though we

[GENERAL] Dynamically-sized WAL files

Hi all, Is there a reason we require fixed-size WAL files? Thanks Thom -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general