* David Steele (david@pgmasters.net) wrote:
> On 3/22/17 3:09 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> >* Robert Haas (robertmhaas@gmail.com) wrote:
> >>On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 1:49 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
> >>>Then perhaps we do need to be thinking of moving this to PG11 instead of
> >>>exposing an option that users will start to use which will result in WAL
> >>>naming that'll be confusing and inconsistent. I certainly don't think
> >>>it's a good idea to move forward exposing an option with a naming scheme
> >>>that's agreed to be bad.
> >>
> >
> >One of the reasons to go with the LSN is that we would actually be
> >maintaining what happens when the WAL files are 16MB in size.
> >
> >David's initial expectation was this for 64MB WAL files:
> >
> >000000010000000000000040
> >000000010000000000000080
> >0000000100000000000000CO
> >000000010000000100000000
>
> This is the 1GB sequence, actually, but idea would be the same for
> 64MB files.
Ah, right, sorry.
Thanks!
Stephen
