Re: WAL compression setting after PostgreSQL LZ4 default change

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Japin Li <japinli(at)hotmail(dot)com>
Cc: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, wenhui qiu <qiuwenhuifx(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, John Naylor <johncnaylorls(at)gmail(dot)com>, Christoph Berg <myon(at)debian(dot)org>
Subject: Re: WAL compression setting after PostgreSQL LZ4 default change
Date: 2026-07-07 22:26:34
Message-ID: ak19GnnQE46n6myy@paquier.xyz
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Jul 03, 2026 at 04:38:06PM +0800, Japin Li wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Jul 2026 at 11:58, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 1, 2026 at 8:45 AM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 30, 2026 at 06:25:09PM +0800, wenhui qiu wrote:
>>> > The recent PostgreSQL commit changes the default TOAST compression to lz4
>>> > when LZ4 support is available, based on the rationale that LZ4 is generally
>>> > more efficient than pglz in terms of CPU usage and compression
>>> > ratio. Given that, should we also consider changing the default
>>> > compression method used by wal_compression = on from pglz to lz4?
>>>
>>> "on" is just a backward-compatible value, so we could let it as-is.
>>
>> Yes, so +1 to leaving "on" as it is. Making its meaning depend on
>> the build options seems very confusing. Users who want lz4 or zstd
>> can simply specify those methods explicitly instead of using "on".
>
> Understood. I'll withdraw this from the CommitFest.

I disagree. The whole argument is that most users don't bother
changing the defaults. Here, a change between lz4/zstd and pglz is
like day and night; folks are going to see improvements all the time
if we switch to a better default when we can, in terms of CPU, memory
and IO.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tomas Vondra 2026-07-07 22:26:41 Re: hashjoins vs. Bloom filters (yet again)
Previous Message Heikki Linnakangas 2026-07-07 22:17:25 Re: heapam_tuple_complete_speculative : remove unnecessary tuple fetch