On 21 June 2012 02:45, Heikki Linnakangas
<heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> On 20.06.2012 16:46, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>
>> The proposal now includes flag bits that would allow the addition of a
>> variable length header, should that ever become necessary. So the
>> unused space in the fixed header is not being "used up" as you say. In
>> any case, the fixed header still has 4 wasted bytes on 64bit systems
>> even after the patch is applied. So this claim of short sightedness is
>> just plain wrong.
>>
>> ...
>
>>
>>
>> We need to add information to every WAL record that is used as the
>> source for generating LCRs. It is also possible to add this to HEAP
>> and HEAP2 records, but doing that *will* bloat the WAL stream, whereas
>> using the *currently wasted* bytes on a WAL record header does *not*
>> bloat the WAL stream.
>
Wonderful ideas, these look good.
> Or, we could provide a mechanism for resource managers to use those padding
> bytes for whatever data the wish to use.
Sounds better to me.
> Or modify the record format so that
> the last 4 bytes of the data in the WAL record are always automatically
> stored in those padding bytes, thus making all WAL records 4 bytes shorter.
> That would make the WAL even more compact, with only a couple of extra CPU
> instructions in the critical path.
Sounds cool, but a little weird, even for me.
> My point is that it's wrong to think that it's free to use those bytes, just
> because they're currently unused. If we use them for one thing, we can't use
> them for other things anymore. If we're so concerned about WAL bloat that we
> can't afford to add any more bytes to the WAL record header or heap WAL
> records, then it would be equally fruitful to look at ways to use those
> padding bytes to save that precious WAL space.
Agreed. Thanks for sharing those ideas. Exactly why I like the list (really...)
> I don't think we're *that* concerned about the WAL bloat, however. So let's
> see what is the most sensible place to add whatever extra information we
> need in the WAL, from the point of view of maintainability, flexibility,
> readability etc. Then we can decide where to put it.
Removing FPW is still most important aspect there.
I think allowing rmgrs to redefine the wasted bytes in the header is
the best idea.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
