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".
-- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
