Re: [HACKERS] increasing the default WAL segment size
| От | Beena Emerson |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: [HACKERS] increasing the default WAL segment size |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAOG9ApEy9rc3_tMcTuoCuJbEgr6CKnsdTPgfX35h4tHd4ZOrMg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] increasing the default WAL segment size (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] increasing the default WAL segment size
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hello,
Thank you for your comments, I will post an updated patch soon.
--
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enter
On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 6:40 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
+assign_wal_segment_size(int newval, void *extra)
Why does a PGC_INTERNAL GUC need an assign hook? I think the GUC
should only be there to expose the value; it shouldn't have
calculation logic associated with it.
The Checkpoint Segments and the UsableBytesInSegment had to be changed depending on the value of wal_segment_size set during initdb. I will figure out another way to assign these values without using this assign_hook.
+ wal_segment_size = atoi(str_wal_segment_size);
So, you're comfortable interpreting --wal-segsize=1TB or
--wal-segsize=1GB as 1? Implicitly, 1MB?
The option was intended to only accept values in MB as the original config --with-wal-segsize option, unfortunately, the patch does not throw error as in the config option when the units are specified.
Error with config option --with-wal-segsize=1MB
configure: error: Invalid WAL segment size. Allowed values are 1,2,4,8,16,32,64.
Should we imitate this behaviour and just add a check to see if it only contains numbers? or would it be better to allow the use of the units and make appropriate code changes?
Thank you,
Beena Emerson
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: