Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On Tuesday, June 19, 2012 04:30:59 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>>> ... (If you are thinking
>>> of something sufficiently high-level that merging could possibly work,
>>> then it's not WAL, and we shouldn't be trying to make the WAL
>>> representation cater for it.)
> Do you really see this as such a big problem?
It looks suspiciously like "I have a hammer, therefore every problem
must be a nail". I don't like the design concept of cramming logical
replication records into WAL in the first place.
However, if we're dead set on doing it that way, let us put information
that is only relevant to logical replication records into only the
logical replication records. Saving a couple bytes in each such record
is penny-wise and pound-foolish, I'm afraid; especially when you're
nailing down hard, unexpansible limits at the very beginning of the
development process in order to save those bytes.
regards, tom lane