| From: | Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Rahila Syed <rahilasyed90(at)gmail(dot)com>, Rahila Syed <rahilasyed(dot)90(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Compression of full-page-writes |
| Date: | 2014-06-11 11:05:01 |
| Message-ID: | CABOikdN6qsrxVJoufUf0KqJokFJjawkBix-0soHXTTVUVLjF9Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> IIUC even when we adopt only one algorithm, additional at least one bit is
> necessary to see whether this backup block is compressed or not.
>
> This flag is necessary only for backup block, so there is no need to use
> the header of each WAL record. What about just using the backup block
> header?
>
>
+1. We can also steal a few bits from ForkNumber field in the backup block
header if required.
Thanks,
Pavan
--
Pavan Deolasee
http://www.linkedin.com/in/pavandeolasee
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2014-06-11 11:32:30 | Re: replication commands and log_statements |
| Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2014-06-11 10:49:10 | Re: Compression of full-page-writes |