Re: AW: Proposed WAL changes - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: AW: Proposed WAL changes
Date
Msg-id 9503.983980031@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: AW: Proposed WAL changes  ("Vadim Mikheev" <vmikheev@sectorbase.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
"Vadim Mikheev" <vmikheev@sectorbase.com> writes:
> So, I don't see why to remove archdir from pg_control now.

I didn't like the space consumption.  I think it's important that the
pg_control data fit in less than 512 bytes so that it doesn't cross
physical sectors on the disk.  This reduces the odds of being left
with a corrupted pg_control due to partial write during power loss.

That's a second-order consideration, possibly, but I can see no
redeeming social advantage whatever to having archdir in pg_control
rather than in postgresql.conf where all the other system parameters
live.  Unless you've got one, it's coming out...
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: AW: AW: AW: AW: AW: WAL-based allocation of XIDs is ins ecur e
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Proposed WAL changes