Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
> Andreas,
>> So imho pg_compresslog is the correct path forward. The current
>> discussion is only about whether we want a more complex pg_compresslog
>> and no change to current WAL, or an increased WAL size for a less
>> complex implementation.
>> Both would be able to compress the WAL to the same "archive log" size.
> Huh? As conceived, pg_compresslog does nothing to lower log volume for
> general purposes, just on-disk storage size for archiving. It doesn't help
> us at all with the tremendous amount of log we put out for an OLTP server,
> for example.
I don't see how what you said refutes what he said. The sticking point
here is that the patch as-proposed *increases* the log volume before
compression.
regards, tom lane
