On Fri, Jul 11, 2025 at 12:45 AM Thomas Munro <thomas.mu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2025 at 5:39 AM Dimitrios Apostolou <ji...@gmx.net> wrote: > > > I applied the patch on PostgreSQL v17 and am testing it now. I chose > > > ftruncate method and I see ftruncate in action using strace while doing > > > pg_restore of a big database. Nothing unexpected has happened so far. > I also > > > verified that files are being compressed, obeying Btrfs's mount option > > > compress=zstd. > > > > > > Thanks for the patch! What are the odds of commiting it to v17? > > > > Ping. :-) > > Patch behaves good for me. Any chance of applying it and backporting it? > > Yeah, this seems to make sense, as it is a pretty bad regression for > people who are counting on BTRFS compression for their large database. > Not so sure about the threshold bit -- I'd probably leave that out of > the backport in the interest of stable branch-minimalism. Anyone have > any better ideas, better naming, or objections? > Not just to throw a wrench in there, but... Should this perhaps be a tablespace option? ISTM having different filesystems for them is a good reason to use tablespaces in the first place, and then being able to pick different options... -- Magnus Hagander Me: https://www.hagander.net/ <http://www.hagander.net/> Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/ <http://www.redpill-linpro.com/>
