Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakan...@vmware.com> writes:
> 2. Instead of storing the new compressed posting list in the WAL record,
> store only the new item pointers added to the page. WAL replay would
> then have to duplicate the work done in the main insertion code path:
> find the right posting lists to insert to, decode them, add the new
> items, and re-encode.
That sounds fairly dangerous ... is any user-defined code involved in
those decisions?
> This record format would be higher-level, in the sense that we would not
> store the physical copy of the compressed posting list as it was formed
> originally. The same work would be done at WAL replay. As the code
> stands, it will produce exactly the same result, but that's not
> guaranteed if we make bugfixes to the code later, and a master and
> standby are running different minor version. There's not necessarily
> anything wrong with that, but it's something to keep in mind.
Version skew would be a hazard too, all right. I think it's important
that WAL replay be a pretty mechanical, predictable process.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
