Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Are there plans to add data compression feature to postgresql?

From: "Scott Marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Gregory Stark" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, 小波 顾 <guxiaobo1982(at)hotmail(dot)com>, Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz <gryzman(at)gmail(dot)com>, chris(dot)ellis(at)shropshire(dot)gov(dot)uk, "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Are there plans to add data compression feature to postgresql?
Date: 2008-10-30 22:50:06
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-general
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 4:41 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> "Scott Marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 4:01 PM, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>>> I can't really see trusting Postgres on a filesystem that felt free to
>>> compress portions of it. Would the filesystem still be able to guarantee that
>>> torn pages won't "tear" across adjacent blocks? What about torn pages that
>>> included hint bits being set?
>> I can't see PostgreSQL noticing it. PostgreSQL hands the OS a 512byte
>> block, the OS compresses it and it's brethren as the go to disk,
>> uncompresses as they come out, and as long as what you put in is what
>> you get back it shouldn't really matter.
> I think Greg's issue is exactly about what guarantees you'll have left
> after the data that comes back fails to be the data that went in.

Sounds kinda hand wavy to me.  If compressed file systems didn't give
you back what you gave them I couldn't imagine them being around for
very long.

In response to


pgsql-general by date

Next:From: Gregory StarkDate: 2008-10-30 22:52:22
Subject: Re: psql screen size
Previous:From: ThomasDate: 2008-10-30 22:46:02
Subject: Re: a LEFT JOIN problem

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group