On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 2:43 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Do you think it's worth worrying about the reduction in the number of >> possible SI message types? > > IIRC the number of message types is the number of catalog caches plus > half a dozen or so. We're a long way from exhausting even a 1-byte > ID field; and we could play more games if we had to, since there would > be a padding byte free in the message types that refer to a catalog > cache. IOW, 1-byte id doesn't bother me.
I took a look at what is required to implement $SUBJECT tonight and it appears to be remarkably straightforward. I suppose this qualifies as a reason to increment WAL_PAGE_MAGIC, since SharedInvalidationMessages are now xlogged; and I added an Assert() to AddCatCacheInvalidationMessage to detect overruns of the id field, but other than that it seems to be just a matter of s/int16/int8/ in a handful of places. For those following along at home: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-07/msg00355.php [the patch for which this is a prerequisite] http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-08/msg00366.php [why it needs it] http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-08/msg00425.php [how this helps] Thoughts? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company
Description: Binary data
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers