On 3/17/17 4:56 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
>> On 3/17/17 16:20, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>> I think we would have to extend restore_command with an additional
>>> placeholder that communicates the segment size, and add a new pg_standby
>>> option to accept that size somehow. And specifying the size would have
>>> to be mandatory, for complete robustness. Urgh.
>
>> Another way would be to name the WAL files in a more self-describing
>> way. For example, instead of
>
> Actually, if you're content with having tools obtain this info by
> examining the WAL files, we shouldn't need to muck with the WAL naming
> convention (which seems like it would be a horrid mess, anyway --- too
> much outside code knows that). Tools could get the segment size out of
> XLogLongPageHeaderData.xlp_seg_size in the first page of the segment.
>
> regards, tom lane
+1
--
-David
david@pgmasters.net
