On 1/10/13 6:14 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 10 January 2013 20:13, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
>>> On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 05:06:49PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>>>> Let's wait till we see where the logical rep stuff ends up before we
>>>> worry about saving 4 bytes per WAL record.
>>
>>> Well, we have wal_level to control the amount of WAL traffic.
>>
>> That's entirely irrelevant. The point here is that we'll need more bits
>> to identify what any particular record is, unless we make a decision
>> that we'll have physically separate streams for logical replication
>> info, which doesn't sound terribly attractive; and in any case no such
>> decision has been made yet, AFAIK.
>
> You were right to say that this is less important than logical
> replication. I don't need any more reason than that to stop talking
> about it.
>
> I have a patch for this, but as yet no way to submit it while at the
> same time saying "put this at the back of the queue".
Anything ever come of this?
--
Jim C. Nasby, Data Architect jim@nasby.net
512.569.9461 (cell) http://jim.nasby.net
