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
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Alvaro Herrera||Date: 2013-01-10 21:00:40|
|Subject: Re: foreign key locks|
|Previous:||From: Merlin Moncure||Date: 2013-01-10 20:01:21|
|Subject: Re: json api WIP patch|