> Writing to a different area was considered in pg, but there were more
> negative issues than positive.
> So imho pg_compresslog is the correct path forward. The current
> discussion is only about whether we want a more complex pg_compresslog
> and no change to current WAL, or an increased WAL size for a less
> complex implementation.
> Both would be able to compress the WAL to the same "archive log" size.

Huh?  As conceived, pg_compresslog does nothing to lower log volume for 
general purposes, just on-disk storage size for archiving.  It doesn't help 
us at all with the tremendous amount of log we put out for an OLTP server, 
for example.

Not that pg_compresslog isn't useful on its own for improving warm standby 
managability, but it's completely separate from addressing the "we're logging 
too much" issue.

Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?


Reply via email to