Re: [HACKERS] increasing the default WAL segment size - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: [HACKERS] increasing the default WAL segment size
Date
Msg-id CAB7nPqToM0aXEUTYKoOQ7BTt2OErfXdWpQZfr84b09sVSkv-ww@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] increasing the default WAL segment size  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] increasing the default WAL segment size  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 12:49 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 12:42 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Problems 2-4 actually have to do with a DestReceiver of type
>> DestRemote really, really wanting to have an associated Portal and
>> database connection, so one approach is to create a stripped-down
>> DestReceiver that doesn't care about those things and then passing
>> that to GetPGVariable.
>
> I tried that and it worked out pretty well, so I'm inclined to go with
> this approach.  Proposed patches attached.  0001 adds the new
> DestReceiver type, and 0002 is a revised patch to implement the SHOW
> command itself.
>
> Thoughts, comments?

This looks like a sensible approach to me. DestRemoteSimple could be
useful for background workers that are not connected to a database as
well. Isn't there a problem with PGC_REAL parameters?
-- 
Michael



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Ashutosh Bapat
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] pg_hba_file_settings view patch
Next
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Too many autovacuum workers spawned during forced auto-vacuum