| From: | "Alex Hunsaker" <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Stephen R(dot) van den Berg" <srb(at)cuci(dot)nl> |
| Cc: | "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "James Mansion" <james(at)mansionfamily(dot)plus(dot)com>, "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: Significantly larger toast tables on 8.4? |
| Date: | 2009-01-06 20:30:11 |
| Message-ID: | 34d269d40901061230x46cc6bc3v43edfa004cda611b@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 12:57, Stephen R. van den Berg <srb(at)cuci(dot)nl> wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>(1) Compress everything within reason by default, causing slower retrieval, do
>>not offer substr optimization. [<= 8.3]
>
>>(2) Compress only up to 1 MB, causing faster retrieval, supporting substr
>>optimization. [8.4devel]
>
>>I am personally completely puzzled by option number 2. Is there even a single
>>use case for that?
>
> I can't imagine one, and (in this thread at least) noone has demonstrated
> such; Tom hinted at one, but he didn't elaborate.
Well that check got removed today anyway see:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2009-01/msg00069.php
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Paul Schlie | 2009-01-06 20:32:40 | Re: incoherent view of serializable transactions |
| Previous Message | Joe Conway | 2009-01-06 20:00:39 | Re: dblink vs SQL/MED - security and implementation details |