From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: FPW compression leaks information |
Date: | 2015-04-13 02:39:10 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1+jwvbY3LpmbhJXS3AAs1DDvKCEtaoNTJPeqLwo=-n6FQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 8:51 PM, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> wrote:
>
> All in all, this is a bit clumsy and very time-consuming to pull off in
practice, but it's possible at least if the conditions are just right.
>
> What should we do about this? Make it configurable on a per-table basis?
I think making it configurable on a per-table basis have another advantage
of controlling impact of FPW compression for tables that have less
compressible data (there is a CPU overhead of compression even though
it doesn't actually compress much). In-fact I had added such an option
during development of another related patch (WAL compression for Update),
if we think it is useful, I can extract that part of the patch and rebase
it.
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2015-04-13 03:21:29 | Re: TABLESAMPLE patch |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2015-04-13 00:48:35 | Re: FPW compression leaks information |