Hello, On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 9:29 AM, Peter Eisentraut < peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 4/4/17 22:47, Amit Kapila wrote: > >> Committed first part to allow internal representation change (only). > >> > >> No commitment yet to increasing wal-segsize in the way this patch has > it. > >> > > > > What part of patch you don't like and do you have any suggestions to > > improve the same? > > I think there are still some questions and disagreements about how it > should behave. > The WALfilename - LSN mapping disruption for higher values you mean? Is there anything else I have missed? > > I suggest the next step is to dial up the allowed segment size in > configure and run some tests about what a reasonable maximum value could > be. I did a little bit of that, but somewhere around 256 MB, things got > really slow. > Would it be better if just increase the limit to 128MB for now? In next we can change the WAL file name format and expand the range? -- Beena Emerson EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
