> I'm still on a -1 for that. You mentioned that there is perhaps no reason > to delay a decision on this matter, but IMO there is no reason to rush > either in doing something we may regret. And I am not the only one on this > thread expressing concern about this extra data thingy. > > If this extra data field is going to be used to identify from which node a > commit comes from, then it is another feature than what is written on the > subject of this thread. In this case let's discuss it in the thread > dedicated to replication identifiers, or come up with an extra patch once > the feature for commit timestamps is done.
Introducing the extra data field in a later patch would mean an on-disk representation change, i.e. pg_upgrade trouble.
Then why especially 4 bytes for the extra field? Why not 8 or 16?
