On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 04:04:13PM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 28 May 2014 15:34, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> Also, compress_backup_block GUC needs to be merged with full_page_writes. > > > > Basically I agree with you because I don't want to add new GUC very similar > > to > > the existing one. > > > > But could you imagine the case where full_page_writes = off. Even in this > > case, > > FPW is forcibly written only during base backup. Such FPW also should be > > compressed? Which compression algorithm should be used? If we want to > > choose the algorithm for such FPW, we would not be able to merge those two > > GUCs. IMO it's OK to always use the best compression algorithm for such FPW > > and merge them, though. > > I'd prefer a new name altogether > > torn_page_protection = 'full_page_writes' > torn_page_protection = 'compressed_full_page_writes' > torn_page_protection = 'none' > > this allows us to add new techniques later like > > torn_page_protection = 'background_FPWs' > > or > > torn_page_protection = 'double_buffering' > > when/if we add those new techniques
Uh, how would that work if you want to compress the background_FPWs? Use compressed_background_FPWs? -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + Everyone has their own god. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
