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

• Re: Reducing size of WAL record headers at 2013-01-10 19:54:24 from Bruce Momjian

Responses

• Re: Reducing size of WAL record headers at 2013-01-11 00:14:53 from Simon Riggs

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