Hi, On Tue, 4 Aug 2026 at 18:11, Ayush Tiwari <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, 4 Aug 2026 at 13:55, Ayush Tiwari <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Tue, 4 Aug 2026 at 12:32, Nazir Bilal Yavuz <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> I think it is not correct to reduce the request to fit within >>> max_wal_size. User wants to do something but you change the request >>> without any confirmation. I think you should reject the request if >>> 'bytes > max_wal_size && !force', and show a notice or error that the >>> same request can be done with the force option. >> >> >> Hmm makes sense, thanks for the input. I'll make it so. > > v5 attached. > > It does [1] instead of silently creating segments. > > Nothing gets created when it errors out, and the NOTICE is gone. > > I ended up comparing after rounding up to whole segments rather than on the > byte value directly. Otherwise asking for exactly max_wal_size still sneaks a > segment past it when max_wal_size isn't a multiple of the segment size.
I think comparing whole segments is correct. v5 LGTM. -- Regards, Nazir Bilal Yavuz Microsoft
