On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 3:24 PM, David Steele <david@pgmasters.net> wrote:
>> 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.
Wait, really? I thought you abandoned this approach because there's
then no principled way to handle WAL segments of less than the default
size.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
