On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 2:37 PM, Nikhil Sontakke <nikkh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Fujii-san, > > I must be missing something really trivial, but why not try to compress all > types of WAL blocks and not just FPW?
The size of non-FPW WAL is small, compared to that of FPW. I thought that compression of such a small WAL would not have big effect on the reduction of WAL size. Rather, compression of every WAL records might cause large performance overhead. Also, focusing on FPW makes the patch very simple. We can add the compression of other WAL later if we want. Regards, -- Fujii Masao -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
