On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 09:57 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > I wrote: > > Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> In some cases, but my wish is also to minimise WAL volume as much as > >> possible. > > > I'm with Greg on this one: baroque bit-squeezing schemes are a bad idea. > > Wait a minute ... why are we even having this conversation? XLogRecord > has at least two entirely-wasted bytes right now, due to alignment. > It is entirely not sane to consider messing with xl_prev in preference > to using that space.
OK, two bytes it is then. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
