Josh Berkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Andreas,
>> 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.

I don't see how what you said refutes what he said.  The sticking point
here is that the patch as-proposed *increases* the log volume before

                        regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
       subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
       message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Reply via email to