On 1/10/13 6:14 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
On 10 January 2013 20:13, Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian <bruce@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 jim@nasby.net
512.569.9461 (cell) http://jim.nasby.net

Search Discussions

Discussion Posts

Previous

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
posts ‹ prev | 12 of 12 | next ›
Discussion Overview
grouppgsql-hackers @
categoriespostgresql
postedJan 9, '13 at 8:36p
activeAug 24, '13 at 5:03a
posts12
users5
websitepostgresql.org...
irc#postgresql

People

Translate

site design / logo © 2021 Grokbase