On Fri, 2007-05-04 at 13:21 +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote: > On Fri, May 04, 2007 at 08:43:43AM +0100, Bob Ham wrote: > > On Thu, 2007-05-03 at 23:29 +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote: > > > On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 05:43:46PM +0100, Bob Ham wrote: > > > > Secondly, the node should fill up each store regardless of the > > > > configured split point until it reaches the maximum overall store size. > > > > At that time, it should reduce the size of whichever store is over its > > > > allocation as and when the other store needs it. > > > > > > It's not easy to do online shrinking without ending up losing the most > > > valuable rather than the least valuable data. > > > > What do you mean by "easy", exactly? > > Well... it's possible, but it's probably best to wait until we get > around to doing the drastic datastore changes that we have queued for a > while, here's the wishlist: > ... > Most of these have bugs filed. At the moment none of them is a priority, > but if you want to work on them that'd be great.
Woah there cowboy! We can't discuss working on bugs or implementation of wish list items here! I'm afraid you're going to have to resend your email to the -devl list so that I can read it there instead of here.
