Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 2006-04-04 at 11:13 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Hm. The entire point of having a BLCKSZ-sized control file is to have
>> it *not* change in size across format revisions (see the comments) ...
>> which I suppose means that we really ought to have a ha
Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> An additional patch enclosed that adds xlog blcksz onto the xlog long
> header at the start of each xlog file, so we can cross-check between
> file and system, as we do with xlog seg size.
That would require an xlog format change (XLOG_PAGE_MAGIC bump). M
On Tue, 2006-04-04 at 17:33 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-04-04 at 11:13 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > I see you've changed the control file back from XLOG_BLCKSZ to BLCKSZ; I
> > > wasn't sure which one of those to choose.
> >
> > Hm. The ent
On Tue, 2006-04-04 at 11:13 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I see you've changed the control file back from XLOG_BLCKSZ to BLCKSZ; I
> > wasn't sure which one of those to choose.
>
> Hm. The entire point of having a BLCKSZ-sized control file is to have
> it *n
Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I see you've changed the control file back from XLOG_BLCKSZ to BLCKSZ; I
> wasn't sure which one of those to choose.
Hm. The entire point of having a BLCKSZ-sized control file is to have
it *not* change in size across format revisions (see the comments) .
On Mon, 2006-04-03 at 19:37 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Mark Wong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Here's an updated patch with help from Simon. Once I get a test system
> > going again in the lab I'll start posting some data. I'm planning a
> > combination of block sizes (BLCKSZ and XLOG_BLCKSZ) and
