Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com> writes:
> The problem with this (which I basically agree with) is that this will
> greatly increase the size of the queue for all participants of this
> feature if they use the payload or not. I think it boils down to
> this: is there a reasonably effective way of making the payload
> variable length (now or in the future)? If not, let's compromise and
> maybe go with a larger size, maybe 256 or 512 bytes.
Yeah, if the payload is not variable length then we are not going to be
able to make it more than a couple hundred bytes without taking a
significant performance hit. (By the way, has anyone yet tried to
compare the speed of this implementation to the old code?)
regards, tom lane
