On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 09:15:16PM +0000, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 9 January 2013 21:02, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakan...@vmware.com> wrote: > > >> OK, crazy idea, but can we just record xl_len as a difference against > >> xl_tot_len, and shorten the xl_len field? > > > > > > Hmm, so it would essentially be the length of all the backup blocks. perhaps > > rename it to xl_bkpblk_len. > > > > However, that would cap the total size of backup blocks to 64k. Which would > > not be enough with 32k BLCKSZ. > > Since that requires a recompile anyway, why not make XLogRecord > smaller only for 16k BLCKSZ or less? > > Problem if we do that is that xl_len is used extensively in _redo > routines, so its a much more invasive patch.
I would just make it int16 on <=16k block size, and int32 on >16k blocks. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
