On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 12:43 PM, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > On 02.08.2011 14:36, Simon Riggs wrote: >> >> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 12:03 PM, Heikki Linnakangas >> <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: >>> >>> If we change the WAL record, we have to make it so that the new version >>> can >>> still read the old format, which complicates the implementation a bit. >>> Neverthelss, I'm leaning towards option 1. >> >> We may as well do (1), with two versions of the WAL record. > > Actually I think we can append the new information to the end of the page > split record, so that an old version server can read WAL generated by new > version, too.
Not sure how that would work. Lengths, CRCs? Or do you mean we will support 2 versions, have them both called the same thing, just resolve which is which by the record length. Don't like that. -- Simon Riggs 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
