Re: wal_compression=zstd

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: wal_compression=zstd
Date: 2022-03-04 13:10:35
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2/22/22 18:19, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> As writen, this patch uses zstd level=1 (whereas the ZSTD's default compress
> level is 6).

I think this choice needs to be supported by some benchmarks.

> 0001 adds support for zstd
> 0002 makes more efficient our use of bits in the WAL header
> 0003 makes it the default compression, to exercise on CI (windows will fail).
> 0004 adds support for zstd-level
> 0005-6 are needed to allow recovery tests to pass when wal compression is enabled;
> 0007 (not included) also adds support for zlib. I'm of the impression nobody
> cares about this, otherwise it would've been included 5-10 years ago.
> Only 0001 should be reviewed for pg15 - the others are optional/future work.

I don't see why patch 5 shouldn't be applied forthwith.



Andrew Dunstan

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Fabien COELHO 2022-03-04 13:48:27 Re: psql - add SHOW_ALL_RESULTS option
Previous Message Robert Haas 2022-03-04 13:08:03 Re: wal_compression=zstd