From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Move pg_attribute.attcompression to earlier in struct for reduced size? |
Date: | 2021-05-27 13:34:08 |
Message-ID: | 1709324.1622122448@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 12:11 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> AFAIR, there are zero promises about how effective, or when effective,
>> changes in SET STORAGE will be. And the number of complaints about
>> that has also been zero. So I'm not sure why we need to do more for
>> SET COMPRESSION. Especially since I'm unconvinced that recompressing
>> everything just to recompress everything would *ever* be worthwhile.
> I think it is good to have *some* way of ensuring that what you want
> the system to do, it is actually doing. If we have not a single
> operation in the system anywhere that can force recompression, someone
> who actually cares will be left with no option but a dump and reload.
> That is probably both a whole lot slower than something in the server
> itself and also a pretty silly thing to have to tell people to do.
[ shrug... ] I think the history of the SET STORAGE option teaches us
that there is no such requirement, and you're inventing a scenario that
doesn't exist in the real world.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Paul Guo | 2021-05-27 13:50:28 | Re: pg_rewind fails if there is a read only file. |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2021-05-27 12:08:46 | Re: Bracket, brace, parenthesis |