On 2014-12-14 09:56:59 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 5:45 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > On 13 December 2014 at 14:36, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > >> Something to be aware of btw is that this patch introduces an > >> additional 8 bytes per block image in WAL as it contains additional > >> information to control the compression. In this case this is the > >> uint16 compress_len present in XLogRecordBlockImageHeader. > > > > So we add 8 bytes to all FPWs, or only for compressed FPWs? > In this case that was all. We could still use xl_info to put a flag > telling that blocks are compressed, but it feels more consistent to > have a way to identify if a block is compressed inside its own header.
Your 'consistency' argument doesn't convince me. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
