On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 3:54 PM, KONDO Mitsumasa
<kondo.mitsumasa@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> (2013/11/15 19:27), Sawada Masahiko wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 7:51 PM, Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11/14/2013 07:02 AM, Sawada Masahiko wrote:
>>>
>>>> I attached patch adds new wal_level 'all'.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Shouldn't this be a separate setting? It's useful for storage which
>>> requires rewriting a partially written sector before it can be read
>>> again.
>>>
>>
>> Thank you for comment.
>> Actually, I had thought to add separate parameter.
>
> I think that he said that if you can proof that amount of WAL is almost same
> and
> without less performance same as before, you might not need to separate
> parameter in your patch.
>
Thanks!
I took it wrong.
I think that there are quite a few difference amount of WAL.
> Did you test about amount of WAL size in your patch?
Not yet. I will do that.
Regards,
-------
Sawada Masahiko
