Re: WAL Record Header Size Reduction

From: "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: WAL Record Header Size Reduction
Date: 2007-01-25 16:46:15
Message-ID: 1169743575.3772.187.camel@silverbirch.site
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, 2007-01-25 at 11:03 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> > ISTM that we would get the effect your looking for by just moving the
> > xl_tot_len field to the end, and only storing it for records with backup
> > blocks:
>
> I like that formulation better --- seems like less
> change-for-the-sake-of-change.

Will do.

--
Simon Riggs
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Teodor Sigaev 2007-01-25 16:49:12 Re: tsearch in core patch, for inclusion
Previous Message Nikolay Samokhvalov 2007-01-25 16:35:25 Re: tsearch in core patch, for inclusion