From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
---|---|
To: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | gkokolatos(at)pm(dot)me, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Teach pg_receivewal to use lz4 compression |
Date: | 2021-07-12 05:56:03 |
Message-ID: | YOvZcxqZSX8Rjj0R@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 11:10:24AM +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 8, 2021 at 7:48 PM <gkokolatos(at)pm(dot)me> wrote:
>> We can, though I am not in favour of doing so. There is seemingly
>> little benefit for added complexity.
>
> I am really not sure what complexity you are talking about, do you
> mean since with pglz we were already providing the compression level
> so let it be as it is but with the new compression method you don't
> see much benefit of providing compression level or speed?
You mean s/pglz/zlib/ here perhaps? I am not sure what Georgios has
in mind, but my opinion stands on the latter: there is little benefit
in making lz4 faster than the default and reduce compression, as the
default is already a rather low CPU user.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alexander Lakhin | 2021-07-12 06:06:01 | Re: More time spending with "delete pending" |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2021-07-12 05:52:30 | Re: More time spending with "delete pending" |