On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 09:57 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
> > Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> writes:
> >> 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.
>
> Wait a minute ... why are we even having this conversation? XLogRecord
> has at least two entirely-wasted bytes right now, due to alignment.
> It is entirely not sane to consider messing with xl_prev in preference
> to using that space.
OK, two bytes it is then.
-- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.comPostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
