Re: Compression of full-page-writes

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 04:04:13PM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 28 May 2014 15:34, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> >> Also, compress_backup_block GUC needs to be merged with full_page_writes.
> >
> > Basically I agree with you because I don't want to add new GUC very similar to
> > the existing one.
> >
> > But could you imagine the case where full_page_writes = off. Even in this case,
> > FPW is forcibly written only during base backup. Such FPW also should be
> > compressed? Which compression algorithm should be used? If we want to
> > choose the algorithm for such FPW, we would not be able to merge those two
> > GUCs. IMO it's OK to always use the best compression algorithm for such FPW
> > and merge them, though.
>
> I'd prefer a new name altogether
>
> torn_page_protection = 'full_page_writes'
> torn_page_protection = 'compressed_full_page_writes'
> torn_page_protection = 'none'
>
> this allows us to add new techniques later like
>
> torn_page_protection = 'background_FPWs'
>
> or
>
> torn_page_protection = 'double_buffering'
>
> when/if we add those new techniques

Uh, how would that work if you want to compress the background_FPWs?
Use compressed_background_FPWs?

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ Everyone has their own god. +