On 15/10/2025 07:51, John Naylor wrote:
On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 7:20 PM Heikki Linnakangas <[email protected]> wrote:
This patch consumes one of the padding bytes. That's not entirely free,
as there is an opportunity cost: we could squeeze out the padding bytes
and save 2 bytes on every WAL record instead.
I must be misunderstanding, because I'm not sure how that would work
with the alignment requirement of later parts.
We could store xl_crc unaligned. IIRC all the structs that follow that
are already stored unaligned.
- Heikki
