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

Reply via email to