On 10 January 2013 20:13, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > 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.
You were right to say that this is less important than logical replication. I don't need any more reason than that to stop talking about it. I have a patch for this, but as yet no way to submit it while at the same time saying "put this at the back of the queue". -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers