On 2014-11-27 13:00:57 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 8:27 PM, Syed, Rahila <rahila.s...@nttdata.com> wrote:
> > Don't we need to initialize doPageCompression  similar to doPageWrites in 
> > InitXLOGAccess?
> Yep, you're right. I missed this code path.
> > Also , in the earlier patches compression was set 'on' even when fpw GUC is 
> > 'off'. This was to facilitate compression of FPW which are forcibly written 
> > even when fpw GUC is turned off.
> >  doPageCompression in this patch is set to true only if value of fpw GUC is 
> > 'compress'. I think its better to compress forcibly written full page 
> > writes.
> Meh? (stealing a famous quote).

> This is backward-incompatible in the fact that forcibly-written FPWs
> would be compressed all the time, even if FPW is set to off. The
> documentation of the previous patches also mentioned that images are
> compressed only if this parameter value is switched to compress.

err, "backward incompatible"? I think it's quite useful to allow
compressing newpage et. al records even if FPWs aren't required for the

One thing Heikki brought up somewhere, which I thought to be a good
point, was that it might be worthwile to forget about compressing FDWs
themselves, and instead compress entire records when they're large. I
think that might just end up being rather beneficial, both from a code
simplicity and from the achievable compression ratio.


Andres Freund

 Andres Freund                     http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to