| 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 12:38:58 |
| Message-ID: | 16391.1221741538@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> 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.
I'm with Greg on this one: baroque bit-squeezing schemes are a bad idea.
You still haven't answered the question of what you need four more bits
for (and why four more is all that anyone will ever need --- unless you
can prove that, we might as well just add another flag field).
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-09-18 12:50:51 | Re: Adding new flags to XLogRecord |
| Previous Message | Glyn Astill | 2008-09-18 12:35:30 | Re: Regaining superuser access |