On 2014-12-31 16:09:31 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > I still don't understand the value of adding WAL compression, given the > high CPU usage and minimal performance improvement. The only big > advantage is WAL storage, but again, why not just compress the WAL file > when archiving.
before: pg_xlog is 800GB after: pg_xlog is 600GB. I'm damned sure that many people would be happy with that, even if the *per backend* overhead is a bit higher. And no, compression of archives when archiving helps *zap* with that (streaming, wal_keep_segments, checkpoint_timeout). As discussed before. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
