Re: Adding new flags to XLogRecord

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Greg Stark <greg(dot)stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: 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 12:09:03
Message-ID: 1221739743.3913.2393.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 12:40 +0100, Greg Stark wrote:

> Why bit just add a new bitfield for flags if we need them? I'm usually
> the one worried about data density so perhaps I should be on the other
> side of the fence here but I'm not sure. The conventional wisdom is
> that wal bandwidth is not a major issue.

In some cases, but my wish is also to minimise WAL volume as much as
possible.

--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Heikki Linnakangas 2008-09-18 12:17:18 Re: optimizing CleanupTempFiles
Previous Message Heikki Linnakangas 2008-09-18 12:02:07 Re: FSM patch - performance test