Compiling PostgreSQL for WIndows with 16kb blocksize - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Yannick Collette
Subject Compiling PostgreSQL for WIndows with 16kb blocksize
Date
Msg-id CADTm7M8nPDxXaWA0PpQrb2McbPkJycjxv_r2L53yYsq2qEkf1A@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
Responses Re: Compiling PostgreSQL for WIndows with 16kb blocksize
Re: Compiling PostgreSQL for WIndows with 16kb blocksize
List pgsql-hackers
Hello,

For test purposes I need to compile PostgreSQL 14.1 using a 16kb blocksize.

CFLAGS="-D WINVER=0x0600 -D _WIN32_WINNT=0x0600" LIBS="-ladvapi32"  ./configure --host=x86_64-w64-mingw32 --with-blocksize=16 --with-wal-blocksize=16 --with-openssl --with-libxml --prefix=/c/postgresql/pg14/ 2>&1 | tee configure.log

Below is the beginning of my configure.log, with no errors:  make and make install ok also.

configure: loading site script /etc/config.site
checking build system type... x86_64-pc-msys
checking host system type... x86_64-w64-mingw32
checking which template to use... win32
checking whether NLS is wanted... no
checking for default port number... 5432
checking for block size... 16kB
checking for segment size... 1GB
checking for WAL block size... 16kB
checking for x86_64-w64-mingw32-gcc... x86_64-w64-mingw32-gcc
checking whether the C compiler works... yes
...

DB created successfully using initdb.

Unfortunately my blocksize is still 8kb when checking in DB.

postgres=# show block_size;
 block_size
------------
 8192
(1 row)


postgres=# select version();
                                                           version
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 PostgreSQL 14.1 on x86_64-w64-mingw32, compiled by x86_64-w64-mingw32-gcc.exe (Rev9, Built by MSYS2 project) 10.2.0, 64-bit
(1 row)

Is there anything additional step I'm missing?

Thanks in advance for your help!
Yannick

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: slowest tap tests - split or accelerate?
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: slowest tap tests - split or accelerate?