On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 8:02 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 7:02 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> On 27 August 2016 at 12:09, Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh.2007@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> * wal_consistency_mask = 511 /* Enable consistency check mask bit*/
>>>>
>>>> What does this mean? (No docs)
>>>
>>> I was using this parameter as a masking integer to indicate the
>>> operations(rmgr list) for which we need this feature to be enabled.
>>> Since, this could be confusing, I've changed it accordingly so that it
>>> accepts a list of rmgrIDs. (suggested by Michael, Amit and Robert)
>>
>> Why would we want that?
>>
>
> It would be easier to test and develop the various modules separately.
> As an example, if we develop a new AM which needs WAL facility or
> adding WAL capability to an existing system (say Hash Index), we can
> just test that module, rather than whole system. I think it can help
> us in narrowing down the problem, if we have facility to enable it at
> RMGR ID level. Having said that, I think this must have the facility
> to enable it for all the RMGR ID's (say ALL) and probably that should
> be default.
>
oops, I think having an option of specifying 'ALL' is good, but that
shouldn't be default, because it could have serious performance
implications.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com