Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 10:33 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> ... but I think this is just folly. You'd have to do major amounts
>> of work to keep, eg, slave servers on the same page as the master
>> about what the segment size is.
> I said an initdb-time parameter, meaning not capable of being changed
> within the lifetime of the cluster. So I don't see how the slave
> servers would get out of sync?
The point is that that now becomes something to worry about. I do not
think I have to exhibit a live bug within five minutes' thought before
saying that it's a risk area. It's something that we simply have not
worried about before, and IME that generally means there's some squishy
things there.
regards, tom lane
