On 9 January 2013 21:02, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> wrote:
>> OK, crazy idea, but can we just record xl_len as a difference against
>> xl_tot_len, and shorten the xl_len field?
> Hmm, so it would essentially be the length of all the backup blocks. perhaps
> rename it to xl_bkpblk_len.
> However, that would cap the total size of backup blocks to 64k. Which would
> not be enough with 32k BLCKSZ.
Since that requires a recompile anyway, why not make XLogRecord
smaller only for 16k BLCKSZ or less?
Problem if we do that is that xl_len is used extensively in _redo
routines, so its a much more invasive patch.
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Simon Riggs||Date: 2013-01-09 21:17:25|
|Subject: Re: Reducing size of WAL record headers|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2013-01-09 21:12:40|
|Subject: Re: PL/perl should fail on configure, not make|