On 4/6/17 6:52 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote: > On 04/06/2017 11:45 PM, David Steele wrote: >> >> How many people in the field are running custom builds of >> Postgres? And of those, how many have changed the WAL segment size? >> I've never encountered a non-standard segment size or talked to anyone >> who has. I'm not saying it has *never* happened but I would venture to >> say it's rare. > > I agree it's rare, but I don't think that means we can just consider the > option as 'unsupported'. We're even mentioning it in the docs as a valid > way to customize granularity of the WAL archival. > > I certainly know people who run custom builds, and some of them run with > custom WAL segment size. Some of them are our customers, some are not. > And yes, some of them actually patched the code to allow 256MB WAL > segments.
I feel a little better knowing that *somebody* is doing it in the field. >> Just because we don't change the default doesn't mean that others won't. >> I still think testing for sizes other than 16MB is severely lacking and >> I don't believe caveat emptor is the way to go. > > Aren't you mixing regression and performance testing? I agree we need to > be sure all segment sizes are handled correctly, no argument here. Not intentionally. Our standard test suite is only regression as far as I can see. All the performance testing I've seen has been done ad hoc. >> I don't have plans to add animals. I think we'd need a way to tell >> 'make check' to use a different segment size for tests and then >> hopefully reconfigure some of the existing animals. > > OK. My point was that we don't have that capability now, and the latest > patch is not adding it either. Agreed. -- -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