Re: Quick-and-dirty compression for WAL backup blocks

From: Junji TERAMOTO <teramoto(dot)junji(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Quick-and-dirty compression for WAL backup blocks
Date: 2005-06-06 08:44:50
Message-ID: 42A40D02.5060506@lab.ntt.co.jp
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hello all,

I am interested in how to "Compress WAL entries".
Then, I study the source now, and read this discussion.

There are some questions.

1.
In the XLogInsert(), it makes two kinds of logs, "whole buffer(page)
log" and "partial buffer log", isn't it? Is it only "who buffer log"
to generate a log with "hole"?

2.
Tom Lane wrote:
> The overhead needed is only 2 bytes to show the number of
> bytes removed.

In "whole buffer log", there is a page header that includes offset of
"hole" (lower and upper). If we use that information, we don't need
any overhead, do we?

# Sorry for my bad english..

--
Junji Teramoto

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Mark Cave-Ayland 2005-06-06 10:16:17 Re: Quick-and-dirty compression for WAL backup blocks
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2005-06-06 08:44:44 Re: Speeding up the Postgres lexer