Re: Reducing size of WAL record headers

Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> On Wed, Jan  9, 2013 at 05:06:49PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Let's wait till we see where the logical rep stuff ends up before we
>> worry about saving 4 bytes per WAL record.

> Well, we have wal_level to control the amount of WAL traffic.

That's entirely irrelevant.  The point here is that we'll need more bits
to identify what any particular record is, unless we make a decision
that we'll have physically separate streams for logical replication
info, which doesn't sound terribly attractive; and in any case no such
decision has been made yet, AFAIK.
        regards, tom lane