Re: wal_compression=zstd - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Justin Pryzby
Subject Re: wal_compression=zstd
Date
Msg-id 20220311042844.GJ28503@telsasoft.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: wal_compression=zstd  (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>)
Responses Re: wal_compression=zstd  (Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 12:23:59PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 09, 2022 at 07:14:11AM -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > Anyway there's no compelling reason to not use the default.  If we were to use
> > a non-default default, we'd have to choose between 1 and 2 (or some negative
> > compression level).  My thinking was that zstd-1 would give the lowest-hanging
> > fruits for zstd, while minimizing performance tradeoff, since WAL affects
> > interactivity.  But choosing between 1 and 2 seems like bikeshedding.
> 
> Yeah, I have looked again at the patch today, and I saw no reason to
> not apply it to give more options to the user as zstd or lz4 are both
> good in their own ways.  So done, with the default level used.

It's great news - thanks.

-- 
Justin



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tomas Vondra
Date:
Subject: Re: Column Filtering in Logical Replication
Next
From: Ashutosh Sharma
Date:
Subject: Re: [Proposal] Fully WAL logged CREATE DATABASE - No Checkpoints