On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 1:49 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
> * Robert Haas (robertmhaas@gmail.com) wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 1:22 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
>> > To put this in another light, had this issue been brought up post
>> > feature-freeze, your definition would mean that we would only have the
>> > option to either revert the patch entirely or to live with the poor
>> > naming scheme.
>>
>> Yeah, and I absolutely agree with that. In fact, I think it's
>> *already* past the time when we should be considering the changes you
>> want.
>
> 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.
I'm not sure there is any such agreement. I agree that the naming
scheme for WAL files probably isn't the greatest and that David's
proposal is probably better, but we've had that naming scheme for many
years, and I don't accept that making a previously-configure-time
option initdb-time means that it's suddenly necessary to break
everything for people who continue to use a 16MB WAL size. I really
think that is very unlikely to be a majority position, no matter how
firmly you and David hold to it. It is possible that a majority of
people will agree that such a change should be made, but it seems very
remote that a majority of people will agree that it has to (or even
should be) the same commit that improves the configurability.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
