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


Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
posts ‹ prev | 12 of 12 | next ›
Discussion Overview
grouppgsql-hackers @
postedJan 9, '13 at 8:36p
activeAug 24, '13 at 5:03a



site design / logo © 2021 Grokbase