Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Reducing size of WAL record headers

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Reducing size of WAL record headers
Date: 2013-01-10 20:13:20
Message-ID: 2846.1357848800@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)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.

			regards, tom lane


In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2013-01-10 21:00:40
Subject: Re: foreign key locks
Previous:From: Merlin MoncureDate: 2013-01-10 20:01:21
Subject: Re: json api WIP patch

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group