| From: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: wal_compression=zstd |
| Date: | 2022-03-11 04:28:44 |
| Message-ID: | 20220311042844.GJ28503@telsasoft.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 12:23:59PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 09, 2022 at 07:14:11AM -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > Anyway there's no compelling reason to not use the default. If we were to use
> > a non-default default, we'd have to choose between 1 and 2 (or some negative
> > compression level). My thinking was that zstd-1 would give the lowest-hanging
> > fruits for zstd, while minimizing performance tradeoff, since WAL affects
> > interactivity. But choosing between 1 and 2 seems like bikeshedding.
>
> Yeah, I have looked again at the patch today, and I saw no reason to
> not apply it to give more options to the user as zstd or lz4 are both
> good in their own ways. So done, with the default level used.
It's great news - thanks.
--
Justin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ashutosh Sharma | 2022-03-11 05:05:58 | Re: [Proposal] Fully WAL logged CREATE DATABASE - No Checkpoints |
| Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2022-03-11 04:22:14 | Re: Column Filtering in Logical Replication |