Tom Lane wrote: > "Kevin Grittner" <kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov> writes: >> Greg Smith <gsm...@gregsmith.com> wrote: >>> I thought at one point that the direction this was going toward was to >>> provide the size of the WAL file as a parameter you can use in the >>> archive_command: > >> Hard to beat for performance. I thought there was some technical >> snag. > > Yeah: the archiver process doesn't have that information available.
Am I being really dim here - why isn't the first record in the WAL file a fixed-length record containing e.g. txid_start, time_start, txid_end, time_end, length? Write it once when you start using the file and once when it's finished. -- Richard Huxton Archonet Ltd -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
