Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> writes: > On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 05:06:49PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> Let's wait till we see where the logical rep stuff ends up before we >> worry about saving 4 bytes per WAL record.
> Well, we have wal_level to control the amount of WAL traffic. That's entirely irrelevant. The point here is that we'll need more bits to identify what any particular record is, unless we make a decision that we'll have physically separate streams for logical replication info, which doesn't sound terribly attractive; and in any case no such decision has been made yet, AFAIK. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers