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.
--
-David
david@pgmasters.net
