Andreas, > 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 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org