On Fri, Feb 2, 2024 at 8:52 AM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> To shrink OIDs fields, you could refer to earlier WAL records. A special
> value for "same relation as in previous record", or something like that.
> Now we're just re-inventing LZ-style compression though. Might as well
> use LZ4 or
On 22/01/2024 19:23, Robert Haas wrote:
In the case of this particular patch, I think the problem is that
there's no consensus on the design. There's not a ton of debate on
this thread, but thread [1] linked in the original post contains a lot
of vigorous debate about what the right thing to do
On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 5:38 AM Aleksander Alekseev
wrote:
> I don't think that closing CF entries purely due to inactivity is a
> good practice (neither something we did before) as long as there is
> code, it applies, etc. There are a lot of patches and few people
> working on them. Inactivity
On Mon, 22 Jan 2024 at 16:08, Aleksander Alekseev
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> > I'm seeing that there has been no activity in this thread for nearly 4
> > months, I'm planning to close this in the current commitfest unless
> > someone is planning to take it forward.
>
> I don't think that closing CF
Hi,
> I'm seeing that there has been no activity in this thread for nearly 4
> months, I'm planning to close this in the current commitfest unless
> someone is planning to take it forward.
I don't think that closing CF entries purely due to inactivity is a
good practice (neither something we did
On Tue, 26 Sept 2023 at 02:09, Matthias van de Meent
wrote:
>
> On Tue, 19 Sept 2023 at 01:03, Andres Freund wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 2023-05-18 19:22:26 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > > On 18/05/2023 17:59, Matthias van de Meent wrote:
> > > > It changes the block IDs used to fit in
Hi,
> This scheme is reused later for the XLogRecord xl_tot_len field over
> at [0], and FWIW is thus being reused. Sure, it's tailored to this WAL
> use case, but IMO we're getting good value from it. We don't use
> protobuf or JSON for WAL, we use our own serialization format. Having
> some
On Tue, 19 Sept 2023 at 01:03, Andres Freund wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 2023-05-18 19:22:26 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > On 18/05/2023 17:59, Matthias van de Meent wrote:
> > > It changes the block IDs used to fit in 6 bits, using the upper 2 bits
> > > of the block_id field to store how much
On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 04:03:38PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> I think it's a bad tradeoff to write lots of custom varint encodings, just to
> eek out a bit more space savings. The increase in code complexity IMO makes it
> a bad tradeoff.
+1.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP
Hi,
On 2023-05-18 19:22:26 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 18/05/2023 17:59, Matthias van de Meent wrote:
> > Attached is a patch that reduces this overhead by up to 2 bytes by
> > encoding how large the block data length field is into the block ID,
> > and thus optionally reducing the
On Tue, 5 Sept 2023 at 15:04, Aleksander Alekseev
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I noticed that the patch needs review and decided to take a look.
Thanks for reviewing!
> All in all the patch looks good to me, but I have a couple of nitpicks:
>
> * The comment for XLogSizeClass seems to be somewhat
Hi,
I noticed that the patch needs review and decided to take a look.
> No meaningful savings in the pgbench workload, mostly due to xlog
> record length MAXALIGNs currently not being favorable in the pgbench
> workload. But, record sizes have dropped by 1 or 2 bytes in several
> cases, as can
On Thu, 18 May 2023 at 18:22, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>
> On 18/05/2023 17:59, Matthias van de Meent wrote:
> Perhaps we should introduce a few generic inline functions to do varint
> encoding. That could be useful in many places, while this scheme is very
> tailored for XLogRecordBlockHeader.
On 18/05/2023 17:59, Matthias van de Meent wrote:
Attached is a patch that reduces this overhead by up to 2 bytes by
encoding how large the block data length field is into the block ID,
and thus optionally reducing the block data's length field to 0 bytes.
Examples: cross-page update records
Hi all,
As was previously discussed at the thread surrounding [1]: Currently
any block registration in WAL takes up at least 8 bytes in xlog
overhead, regardless of how much data is included in that block: 1
byte for block ID, 1 byte for fork and flags, 2 bytes for the block
data length, and 4
15 matches
Mail list logo
