| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Koichi Suzuki" <suzuki(dot)koichi(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Full page writes improvement, code update |
| Date: | 2007-04-25 21:55:04 |
| Message-ID: | 6292.1177538104@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> Andreas,
>> So imho pg_compresslog is the correct path forward. The current
>> discussion is only about whether we want a more complex pg_compresslog
>> and no change to current WAL, or an increased WAL size for a less
>> complex implementation.
>> Both would be able to compress the WAL to the same "archive log" size.
> Huh? As conceived, pg_compresslog does nothing to lower log volume for
> general purposes, just on-disk storage size for archiving. It doesn't help
> us at all with the tremendous amount of log we put out for an OLTP server,
> for example.
I don't see how what you said refutes what he said. The sticking point
here is that the patch as-proposed *increases* the log volume before
compression.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-04-25 22:05:56 | Re: strange buildfarm failures |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-04-25 21:49:42 | Re: Avoiding unnecessary reads in recovery |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Koichi Suzuki | 2007-04-26 01:19:45 | Re: [HACKERS] Full page writes improvement, code update |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-04-25 21:46:47 | Re: BUG #3245: PANIC: failed to re-find shared loc k o b j ect |