"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> writes:
> It seems like it might be reasonable to have a separate threshold for
> compression from that for out-of-line storage. Since I've been in
> that code recently, I would be pretty comfortable doing something
> about that; but, as is so often the case, the problem will probably be
> getting agreement on what would be a good change.
> Ignoring for a moment the fact that "low hanging fruit" in the form of
> *very* large values can be handled first, the options would seem to
> be:
> (1) Just hard-code a lower default threshold for compression than for
> out-of-line storage.
> (2) Add a GUC or two to control thresholds.
> (3) Allow override of the thresholds for individual columns.
I'm not clear how this would work. The toast code is designed around
hitting a target for the overall tuple size; how would it make sense
to treat compression and out-of-lining differently? And especially,
how could you have per-column targets?
I could see having a reloption that allowed per-table adjustment of the
target tuple width...
regards, tom lane
