On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 9:04 AM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > In short, I'm also concerned about this change to make WAL file names no > longer match up with LSNs and also about the odd stepping that you get > as a result of this change when it comes to WAL file names.
OK, that's a bit surprising to me, but what do you want to do about it? If you take the approach that Beena did, then you lose the correspondence with LSNs, which is admittedly not great but there are already helper functions available to deal with LSN -> filename mappings and I assume those will continue to work. If you take the opposite approach, then WAL filenames stop being consecutive, which seems to me to be far worse in terms of user and tool confusion. Also note that, both currently and with the patch, you can also reduce the WAL segment size. David's proposed naming scheme doesn't handle that case, I think, and I think it would be all kinds of a bad idea to use one file-naming approach for segments < 16MB and a separate approach for segments > 16MB. That's not making anything easier for users or tool authors. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers