Re: Adding new flags to XLogRecord

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Greg Stark <greg(dot)stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Adding new flags to XLogRecord
Date: 2008-09-18 13:57:16
Message-ID: 18247.1221746236@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

I wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> In some cases, but my wish is also to minimise WAL volume as much as
>> possible.

> I'm with Greg on this one: baroque bit-squeezing schemes are a bad idea.

Wait a minute ... why are we even having this conversation? XLogRecord
has at least two entirely-wasted bytes right now, due to alignment.
It is entirely not sane to consider messing with xl_prev in preference
to using that space.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joshua D. Drake 2008-09-18 14:05:30 Re: Do we really need a 7.4.22 release now?
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2008-09-18 13:50:47 Re: [PATCHES] Infrastructure changes for recovery