Re: Quick-and-dirty compression for WAL backup blocks - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Junji TERAMOTO
Subject Re: Quick-and-dirty compression for WAL backup blocks
Date
Msg-id 42A40D02.5060506@lab.ntt.co.jp
Whole thread Raw
In response to Quick-and-dirty compression for WAL backup blocks  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Quick-and-dirty compression for WAL backup blocks
List pgsql-hackers
Hello all,

I am interested in how to "Compress WAL entries".
Then, I study the source now, and read this discussion.

There are some questions.

1.
In the XLogInsert(), it makes two kinds of logs, "whole buffer(page)
log" and "partial buffer log", isn't it?  Is it only "who buffer log"
to generate a log with "hole"?

2.
Tom Lane wrote:
> The overhead needed is only 2 bytes to show the number of
> bytes removed.

In "whole buffer log", there is a page header that includes offset of
"hole" (lower and upper). If we use that information, we don't need
any overhead, do we?

# Sorry for my bad english..

-- 
Junji Teramoto


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Himanshu Baweja
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_stats not getting updated....
Next
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: Speeding up the Postgres lexer