On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 10:54:33PM +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 09.01.2013 22:36, Simon Riggs wrote:
> >Overall, the WAL record is MAXALIGN'd, so with 8 byte alignment we
> >waste 4 bytes per record. Or put another way, if we could reduce
> >record header by 4 bytes, we would actually reduce it by 8 bytes per
> >record. So looking for ways to do that seems like a good idea.
>
> Agreed.
>
> >The WAL record header starts with xl_tot_len, a 4 byte field. There is
> >also another field, xl_len. The difference is that xl_tot_len includes
> >the header, xl_len and any backup blocks. Since the header is fixed,
> >the only time xl_tot_len != SizeOfXLogRecord + xl_len is when we have
> >backup blocks.
> >
> >We can re-arrange the record layout so that we remove xl_tot_len and
> >add another (maxaligned) 4 byte field (--> 8 bytes) after the record
> >header, xl_bkpblock_len that only exists if we have backup blocks.
> >This will then save 8 bytes from every record that doesn't have backup
> >blocks, and be the same as now with backup blocks.
>
> Here's a better idea:
>
> Let's keep xl_tot_len as it is, but move xl_len at the very end of
> the WAL record, after all the backup blocks. If there are no backup
> blocks, xl_len is omitted. Seems more robust to keep xl_tot_len, so
> that you require less math to figure out where one record ends and
> where the next one begins.
OK, crazy idea, but can we just record xl_len as a difference against
xl_tot_len, and shorten the xl_len field?
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +