Hi Robert,
On 3/22/17 3:45 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 3:24 PM, David Steele <da...@pgmasters.net> wrote:
One of the reasons to go with the LSN is that we would actually be
maintaining what happens when the WAL files are 16MB in size.
David's initial expectation was this for 64MB WAL files:
000000010000000000000040
000000010000000000000080
0000000100000000000000CO
000000010000000100000000
This is the 1GB sequence, actually, but idea would be the same for 64MB
files.
Wait, really? I thought you abandoned this approach because there's
then no principled way to handle WAL segments of less than the default
size.
I did say that, but I thought I had hit on a compromise.
But, as I originally pointed out the hex characters in the filename are
not aligned correctly for > 8 bits (< 16MB segments) and using different
alignments just made it less consistent.
It would be OK if we were willing to drop the 1,2,4,8 segment sizes
because then the alignment would make sense and not change the current
16MB sequence.
Even then, there are some interesting side effects. For 1GB segments
the "0000000100000001000000C0" segment would include LSNs 1/C0000000
through 1/FFFFFFFF. This is correct but is not an obvious filename to
LSN mapping, at least for LSNs that appear later in the segment.
--
-David
da...@pgmasters.net
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
