Hi, On 2020-10-14 15:52:43 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > Yeah. In its current shape, it means that only pg_waldump would be > able to know this information. If you make this information part of > xlogdesc.c, any consumer of the WAL record descriptions would be able > to show this information, so it would provide a consistent output for > any kind of tools.
I'm not convinced by this argument. The only case where accounting for the "wasted" length seems really interesting is for --stats=record - and for that including it in the record description is useless. When looking at plain records the length is sufficiently deducable by looking at the next record's LSN. Greetings, Andres Freund
