Re: WAL compression setting after PostgreSQL LZ4 default change

From: Japin Li <japinli(at)hotmail(dot)com>
To: Christoph Berg <myon(at)debian(dot)org>
Cc: Tomas Vondra <tomas(at)vondra(dot)me>, Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>, wenhui qiu <qiuwenhuifx(at)gmail(dot)com>, Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres(at)jeltef(dot)nl>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, John Naylor <johncnaylorls(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: WAL compression setting after PostgreSQL LZ4 default change
Date: 2026-08-01 01:44:02
Message-ID: SY7PR01MB1092164C7361832D0229CEB5FB6D72@SY7PR01MB10921.ausprd01.prod.outlook.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, 01 Aug 2026 at 00:50, Christoph Berg <myon(at)debian(dot)org> wrote:
> Re: Tomas Vondra
>> Thanks. FWIW I've brought this up with the RMT, and there seem to be no
>> objections to getting this done for PG19. Unless someone objects in the
>> next couple days, I'll get it committed.
>
> Thanks!
>
>> AFAIK the algorithms make different trade offs - zstd tends to compress
>> better, but uses (substantially) more CPU. I think it makes sense to
>> default to lz4, it's clearly better than pglz, with low CPU usage.
>
> Yes, lz4 makes sense to me now. zstd is the "can I tune it harder" pick.
>

How about adding a comment or documentation to clarify the rationale for
choosing lz4 over zstd?

> Christoph

--
Regards,
Japin Li
ChengDu WenWu Information Technology Co., Ltd.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Geoghegan 2026-08-01 03:03:22 RI fast path gets cross-type foreign keys wrong
Previous Message John Naylor 2026-08-01 00:31:08 Re: [Patch]The Case For WAL-Logging pg_upgrade