Greetings, * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Daniel Gustafsson <dan...@yesql.se> writes: > >> On 28 Nov 2018, at 00:43, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > >> Sending it here in case anyone feels that we should do more than just > >> correct the word..? Perhaps for non-native English speakers seeing > >> "whose" used here is confusing? > > > Being a non-native English speaker I think it’s fine and, in my own bias, > > commonly understood. > > I agree that "which" is just wrong here, but "whose" seems a bit malaprop > as well, and it's not the only poor English in that sentence. Maybe > rewrite the whole sentence to avoid the problem? > > * When wal_compression is enabled and a "hole" is removed from a full > * page image, the page image is compressed using PGLZ compression.
Yeah, that seems a bit cleaner. > (BTW, is this trying to say that we don't apply compression if the page > contains no hole? If so, why not?) Sure seems to be saying that, and later on.. * If BKPIMAGE_HAS_HOLE and BKPIMAGE_IS_COMPRESSED, an * XLogRecordBlockCompressHeader struct follows. Yet XLogCompressBackupBlock() sure looks like it'll happily compress a page even if it doesn't have a hole. The replay logic certainly seems to only check if BKPIMAGE_IS_COMPRESSED is set. I'm thinking there's quite a bit of room for improvement here... I wonder if the idea originally was "the page is 'compressed', in some way, if it either had a hole or was actually compressed".. Thanks! Stephen
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature