Thread: pgsql-server/src backend/access/transam/xact.c ...

CVSROOT:    /cvsroot
Module name:    pgsql-server
Changes by:    tgl@svr1.postgresql.org    04/02/11 18:55:27

Modified files:
    src/backend/access/transam: xact.c xlog.c xlogutils.c
    src/backend/storage/smgr: md.c smgr.c
    src/bin/pg_controldata: pg_controldata.c
    src/bin/pg_resetxlog: pg_resetxlog.c
    src/include/access: xact.h xlog.h xlogutils.h
    src/include/catalog: pg_control.h
    src/include    : pg_config_manual.h
    src/include/storage: smgr.h

Log message:
    Commit the reasonably uncontroversial parts of J.R. Nield's PITR patch, to
    wit: Add a header record to each WAL segment file so that it can be reliably
    identified.  Avoid splitting WAL records across segment files (this is not
    strictly necessary, but makes it simpler to incorporate the header records).
    Make WAL entries for file creation, deletion, and truncation (as foreseen but
    never implemented by Vadim).  Also, add support for making XLOG_SEG_SIZE
    configurable at compile time, similarly to BLCKSZ.  Fix a couple bugs I
    introduced in WAL replay during recent smgr API changes.  initdb is forced
    due to changes in pg_control contents.

>     Commit the reasonably uncontroversial parts of J.R. Nield's PITR patch, to
>     wit: Add a header record to each WAL segment file so that it can be reliably
>     identified.  Avoid splitting WAL records across segment files (this is not
>     strictly necessary, but makes it simpler to incorporate the header records).
>     Make WAL entries for file creation, deletion, and truncation (as foreseen but
>     never implemented by Vadim).  Also, add support for making XLOG_SEG_SIZE
>     configurable at compile time, similarly to BLCKSZ.  Fix a couple bugs I
>     introduced in WAL replay during recent smgr API changes.  initdb is forced
>     due to changes in pg_control contents.

Is it worth adding one of those readonly GUC vars for XLOG_SEG_SIZE then?

Chris

Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au> writes:
> Is it worth adding one of those readonly GUC vars for XLOG_SEG_SIZE then?

[shrug...]  Maybe.  I just did it because we've seen one or two requests
about whether the size of the WAL overhead can be reduced for small
installations.  I'm not sure it's something people will do regularly.

            regards, tom lane