Re: Reducing size of WAL record headers - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Simon Riggs
Subject Re: Reducing size of WAL record headers
Date
Msg-id CA+U5nMKF96EONecEj20M5buYk2-O0sc8H2wXcLbJytj=o3B=7w@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Reducing size of WAL record headers  (Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas@vmware.com>)
Responses Re: Reducing size of WAL record headers  (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 9 January 2013 21:02, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas@vmware.com> wrote:

>> OK, crazy idea, but can we just record xl_len as a difference against
>> xl_tot_len, and shorten the xl_len field?
>
>
> Hmm, so it would essentially be the length of all the backup blocks. perhaps
> rename it to xl_bkpblk_len.
>
> However, that would cap the total size of backup blocks to 64k. Which would
> not be enough with 32k BLCKSZ.

Since that requires a recompile anyway, why not make XLogRecord
smaller only for 16k BLCKSZ or less?

Problem if we do that is that xl_len is used extensively in _redo
routines, so its a much more invasive patch.

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



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: PL/perl should fail on configure, not make
Next
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: Reducing size of WAL record headers