Re: Non-replayable WAL records through overflows and >MaxAllocSize lengths - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Ian Lawrence Barwick
Subject Re: Non-replayable WAL records through overflows and >MaxAllocSize lengths
Date
Msg-id CAB8KJ=ixvhJEXriMwUfRY6HU8CqUfkcJzmS2r2zt2nfU2HMqNg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Non-replayable WAL records through overflows and >MaxAllocSize lengths  (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>)
Responses Re: Non-replayable WAL records through overflows and >MaxAllocSize lengths
List pgsql-hackers
2022年10月5日(水) 16:46 Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>:
>
> Hi Matthias,
>
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 02:07:05PM +0200, Matthias van de Meent wrote:
>
> My apologies for the time it took me to come back to this thread.
> > > + * To accommodate some overhead, hhis MaxXLogRecordSize value allows for
> > > s/hhis/this/.
> >
> > Will be included in the next update..
>
> v8 fails to apply.  Could you send a rebased version?
>
> As far as I recall the problems with the block image sizes are solved,
> but we still have a bit more to do in terms of the overall record
> size.  Perhaps there are some parts of the patch you'd like to
> revisit?
>
> For now, I have switched the back as waiting on author, and moved it
> to the next CF.

Hi Matthias

CommitFest 2022-11 is currently underway, so if you are interested
in moving this patch forward, now would be a good time to update it.

Thanks

Ian Barwick



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Ian Lawrence Barwick
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] New [relation] option engine
Next
From: John Naylor
Date:
Subject: Re: Incorrect include file order in guc-file.l