| From: | "Scott Marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Gregory Stark" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | 小波 顾 <guxiaobo1982(at)hotmail(dot)com>, Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz <gryzman(at)gmail(dot)com>, chris(dot)ellis(at)shropshire(dot)gov(dot)uk, "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Are there plans to add data compression feature to postgresql? |
| Date: | 2008-10-30 22:35:38 |
| Message-ID: | dcc563d10810301535s1b96417bif7d97a2b6b929946@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 4:01 PM, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> "Scott Marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>
>> I'm sure this makes for a nice brochure or power point presentation,
>> but in the real world I can't imagine putting that much effort into it
>> when compressed file systems seem the place to be doing this.
>
> I can't really see trusting Postgres on a filesystem that felt free to
> compress portions of it. Would the filesystem still be able to guarantee that
> torn pages won't "tear" across adjacent blocks? What about torn pages that
> included hint bits being set?
I can't see PostgreSQL noticing it. PostgreSQL hands the OS a 512byte
block, the OS compresses it and it's brethren as the go to disk,
uncompresses as they come out, and as long as what you put in is what
you get back it shouldn't really matter.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-10-30 22:40:10 | Re: Decreasing WAL size effects |
| Previous Message | Greg Smith | 2008-10-30 22:23:03 | Re: Decreasing WAL size effects |