> 5 сент. 2017 г., в 15:48, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> > написал(а): > > On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 9:40 PM, Vladimir Borodin <r...@simply.name> wrote: >> We do compress WALs and send them over network. Doing it via archive_command >> in single thread is sometimes slower than new WALs are written under heavy >> load. > > Ah, yeah, true. I do use pg_receivexlog --compress for that locally > and do a bulk copy of only the compressed WALs needed, when needed... > So there is a guarantee that completed segments are durable locally, > which is very useful.
It seems that option --compress appeared only in postgres 10 which is not ready for production yet. BTW I assume that pg_receivexlog is single-threaded too? So it still may be the bottleneck when 3-5 WALs per second are written. > You should definitely avoid putting that in > PGDATA though, the same counts for tablespaces within PGDATA for > example. I would love to but there might be some problems with archiving and in many cases the only partition with enough space to accumulate WALs is partition for PGDATA. -- May the force be with you… https://simply.name
