On 08/30/2017 03:16 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2017-08-30 10:14:22 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 10:06 AM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
>>> On 2017-08-30 09:49:14 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>>> Do you think that we should worry about wal segment sizes higher than
>>>> 2GB? Support for int64 GUCs is not here yet.
>>>
>>> 1GB will be the limit anyway.
>>
>> Yeah, but imagine that we'd want to raise that even more up.
>
> I'm doubtfull of that. But even if, it'd not be hard to GUC support.
>
It's not hard - it's just a lot of copy-pasting of infrastructure code.
Incidentally, I already have a patch doing that, as we had to add that
support to XL, and I can submit it to PostgreSQL. Might save some boring
coding.
regards
--
Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
