On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 17:25, Kevin Grittner <kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov> wrote: > Aidan Van Dyk <ai...@highrise.ca> wrote: > >> When the "being written to" segmnt copmletes moves to the final >> location, he'll get an extra whole "copy" of the file. But of the >> "move" can be an exec of his scritpt, the compressed/gzipped final >> result shouldn't be that bad. Certainly no worse then what he's >> currently getting with archive command ;-) And he's got the >> uncompressed incimental updates as they are happening. > > Hmmm... As long as streaming replication doesn't send the "tail" of > an incomplete WAL segment file, the only thing we'd be missing on > the send to the central location is the compression. That's > typically reducing the size of the transmission by 50% to 75% (e.g., > the gzipped "full" files are usually in the range of 4MB to 8MB). > At our WAN speeds, that is significant. I don't suppose that > streaming replication uses (or offers as an option) a compressed > stream?
No, it sends a regular COPY stream with the raw transaction log data. So the files generated will eventually exactly 16Mb, just like they are in pg_xlog. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
