> > I'd say that's an improvement worth having, especially considering that
> > it requires no net expenditure of CPU time. But the table is certainly
> > still open to discuss more complicated approaches.
>
> If it's not hard to hack in as a test, it'd be interesting to see what
> additional gains a more aggresive compression algorithm like LZW got.
> CPU is more of a concern in that case, but for databases generating a
> lot of WAL it might still be a win.
I've generate a fair amount of WAL segments (about 20GB per day), and
have a CPU issue.
I implemented a cronjob which compresses them using gzip on a different
machine.
Any chance we could have an official compression tool which is
independent of the server itself so we can distribute the load a little?
> BTW, is this the thread you reffered to? I wasn't able to find it in the
> TODO and had to go into the archives to find it...
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2005-04/msg00264.php
--
