Re: increasing the default WAL segment size - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

<div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida
Grande,sans-serif;font-size:12px"><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1472100272670_6301">Hello hackers,</div><div
id="yui_3_16_0_1_1472100272670_6302"><br/></div><div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1472100272670_6303">I'm no PG hacker,
somaybe I'm completely wrong, so sorry if I have wasted your time. I try to make the best out of Tom Lanes comment.<br
/></div><divdir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1472100272670_6304"><br /></div><div dir="ltr"
id="yui_3_16_0_1_1472100272670_7010">Whatwould happen if there's a database on a server with initdb (or whatever)
parameter-with-wal-size=64MB and later someone decides to make it the master in a replicated system and has a slave
withoutthat parameter? Would the slave work with the "different" wal size of the master? How could be guaranteed that
insuch a scenario the replication either works correctly or failes with a meaningful error message?<br /></div><div
id="yui_3_16_0_1_1472100272670_6668"><br/></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1472100272670_6669">But in general I thing a more
flexibleWAL size is a good idea. <br /></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1472100272670_6840">To answer Andres: You have found
oneof the (few?) users to adjust initdb parameters.<br /></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1472100272670_6670"><br
/></div><divid="yui_3_16_0_1_1472100272670_6850">Regards</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1472100272670_6888"><br
/></div><divid="yui_3_16_0_1_1472100272670_6672"><br /></div><div class="qtdSeparateBR"><br /><br /></div><div
class="yahoo_quoted"style="display: block;"><div style="font-family: HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial,
LucidaGrande, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;"><div style="font-family: HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial,
LucidaGrande, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;"><div dir="ltr"><font face="Arial" size="2"> Robert Haas
<robertmhaas@gmail.com>schrieb am 6:43 Donnerstag, 25.August 2016:<br /></font></div><br /><br /><div
class="y_msg_container">OnThu, Aug 25, 2016 at 12:35 AM, Andres Freund <<a href="mailto:andres@anarazel.de"
shape="rect"ymailto="mailto:andres@anarazel.de">andres@anarazel.de</a>> wrote:<br clear="none" />> FWIW, I'm also
doubtfulthat investing time into making this initdb<br clear="none" />> configurable is a good use of time: The
numberof users that'll adjust<br clear="none" />> initdb time parameters is going to be fairly small.<br
clear="none"/><br clear="none" />I have to admit that I was skeptical about the idea of doing anything<br clear="none"
/>aboutthis at all the first few times it came up.  16MB ought to be<br clear="none" />good enough for anyone! 
However,the time between beatings has now<br clear="none" />gotten short enough that the bruises don't have time to
healbefore<br clear="none" />the next beating arrives from a completely different customer.  I try<br clear="none"
/>notto hold my views so firmly as to be impervious to contrary<br clear="none" />evidence.<br clear="none" /><br
clear="none"/>-- <br clear="none" />Robert Haas<br clear="none" />EnterpriseDB: <a href="http://www.enterprisedb.com/"
shape="rect"target="_blank">http://www.enterprisedb.com</a><br clear="none" />The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company<div
class="yqt5140683510"id="yqtfd93095"><br clear="none" /><br clear="none" /><br clear="none" />-- <br clear="none"
/>Sentvia pgsql-hackers mailing list (<a href="mailto:pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" shape="rect"
ymailto="mailto:pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org">pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org</a>)<brclear="none" />To make changes to
yoursubscription:<br clear="none" /><a href="http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers" shape="rect"
target="_blank">http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers</a><brclear="none" /></div><br /><br
/></div></div></div></div></div>