On 1/10/13 6:14 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
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".
Anything ever come of this?
--
Jim C. Nasby, Data Architect j...@nasby.net
512.569.9461 (cell) http://jim.nasby.net
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
