On 4/4/17 22:47, Amit Kapila wrote: >> Committed first part to allow internal representation change (only). >> >> No commitment yet to increasing wal-segsize in the way this patch has it. >> > > What part of patch you don't like and do you have any suggestions to > improve the same?
I think there are still some questions and disagreements about how it should behave.
The WALfilename - LSN mapping disruption for higher values you mean? Is there anything else I have missed?
I suggest the next step is to dial up the allowed segment size in configure and run some tests about what a reasonable maximum value could be. I did a little bit of that, but somewhere around 256 MB, things got really slow.
Would it be better if just increase the limit to 128MB for now?
In next we can change the WAL file name format and expand the range?
