On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 5:10 PM, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 5:26 PM, Michael Paquier > <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I'll go through the patch once again a bit later, but feel free to comment. > Reading again the patch with a fresher mind, I am not sure if the > current approach taken is really the best one. What the patch does now > is looking at the header of the first backup block, and then > compresses the rest, aka the other blocks, up to 4, and their headers, > up to 3. I think that we should instead define an extra bool flag in > XLogRecord to determine if the record is compressed, and then use this > information. Attaching the compression status to XLogRecord is more > in-line with the fact that all the blocks are compressed, and not each > one individually, so we basically now duplicate an identical flag > value in all the backup block headers, which is a waste IMO. > Thoughts?
I think this was changed based on following, if I am not wrong. http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/54297a45.8080...@vmware.com Regards, Amit -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
