On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Steve Singer <st...@ssinger.info> wrote: > If we were now increasing the WAL record size anyway for some unrelated > reason, would we be willing to increase it by a further 2 bytes for the node > identifier?
Obviously not. Otherwise Andres would be proposing to put an OID in there instead of a kooky 16-bit identifier. > If the answer is 'no' then I don't think we can justify using the 2 padding > bytes just because they are there and have been unused for years. But if > the answer is yes, we feel this important enough to justfiy a slightly (2 > byte) larger WAL record header then we shouldn't use the excuse of maybe > needing those 2 bytes for something else. When something else comes along > that needs the WAL space we'll have to increase the record size. > > To say that if some other patch comes along that needs the space we'll redo > this feature to use the method Robert describes is unrealistic. If we think > that the replication identifier isn't general/important/necessary to > justify 2 bytes of WAL header space then we should start out with something > that doesn't use the WAL header, I lean in that direction too, but would welcome more input from others. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
