Re: Compress ReorderBuffer spill files using LZ4

On 6/6/24 16:24, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2024-Jun-06, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jun 6, 2024 at 4:28 PM Julien Tachoires <julmon(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>>
>>> When the content of a large transaction (size exceeding
>>> logical_decoding_work_mem) and its sub-transactions has to be
>>> reordered during logical decoding, then, all the changes are written
>>> on disk in temporary files located in pg_replslot/<slot_name>.
>>> Decoding very large transactions by multiple replication slots can
>>> lead to disk space saturation and high I/O utilization.
>
> I like the general idea of compressing the output of logical decoding.
> It's not so clear to me that we only want to do so for spilling to disk;
> for instance, if the two nodes communicate over a slow network, it may
> even be beneficial to compress when streaming, so to this question:
>
>> Why can't one use 'streaming' option to send changes to the client
>> once it reaches the configured limit of 'logical_decoding_work_mem'?
>
> I would say that streaming doesn't necessarily have to mean we don't
> want compression, because for some users it might be beneficial.
>
> I think a GUC would be a good idea. Also, what if for whatever reason
> you want a different compression algorithm or different compression
> parameters? Looking at the existing compression UI we offer in
> pg_basebackup, perhaps you could add something like this:
>
> compress_logical_decoding = none
> compress_logical_decoding = lz4:42
> compress_logical_decoding = spill-zstd:99
>
> "none" says to never use compression (perhaps should be the default),
> "lz4:42" says to use lz4 with parameters 42 on both spilling and
> streaming, and "spill-zstd:99" says to use Zstd with parameter 99 but
> only for spilling to disk.
>
> (I don't mean to say that you should implement Zstd compression with
> this patch, only that you should choose the implementation so that
> adding Zstd support (or whatever) later is just a matter of adding some
> branches here and there. With the current #ifdef you propose, it's hard
> to do that. Maybe separate the parts that depend on the specific
> algorithm to algorithm-agnostic functions.)
>

I haven't been following the "libpq compression" thread, but wouldn't
that also do compression for the streaming case? That was my assumption,
at least, and it seems like the right way - we probably don't want to
patch every place that sends data over network independently, right?

regards

--
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company