On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 10:01 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> Michael Paquier wrote: > > > I'm still on a -1 for that. You mentioned that there is perhaps no reason > > to delay a decision on this matter, but IMO there is no reason to rush > > either in doing something we may regret. And I am not the only one on > this > > thread expressing concern about this extra data thingy. > > > > If this extra data field is going to be used to identify from which node > a > > commit comes from, then it is another feature than what is written on the > > subject of this thread. In this case let's discuss it in the thread > > dedicated to replication identifiers, or come up with an extra patch once > > the feature for commit timestamps is done. > > Introducing the extra data field in a later patch would mean an on-disk > representation change, i.e. pg_upgrade trouble. Then why especially 4 bytes for the extra field? Why not 8 or 16? -- Michael