Re: POC: make mxidoff 64 bits

Hi
> As a software developer, I definitely want to > implement compression and
> save a few gigabytes. However, given my previous experience using
> Postgres in real-world applications, reliability at the cost of several
> gigabytes would not have caused me any trouble. Just saying.
Agree +1, If this had been done twenty years ago, the cost might have been
unacceptable. But with today’s hardware—especially disk random and
sequential I/O performance improving by hundreds of thousands of times, and
memory capacity increasing by several hundred times—it’s almost
unimaginable that we now have single 256-GB DIMMs. So this kind of overhead
is negligible for modern hardware.

Thanks

On Wed, 3 Dec 2025 at 17:54, Maxim Orlov <orlovmg(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> The biggest problem with compression, in my opinion, is that losing
> even one byte causes the loss of the entire compressed block in the
> worst case scenario. After all, we still don't have checksums for the
> SLRU's, which is a shame by itself.
>
> Again, I'm not against the idea of compression, but the risks need to
> be considered.
>
> As a software developer, I definitely want to implement compression and
> save a few gigabytes. However, given my previous experience using
> Postgres in real-world applications, reliability at the cost of several
> gigabytes would not have caused me any trouble. Just saying.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Maxim Orlov.
>