On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 2:37 PM, Nikhil Sontakke <nikkhils@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Fujii-san,
>
> I must be missing something really trivial, but why not try to compress all
> types of WAL blocks and not just FPW?
The size of non-FPW WAL is small, compared to that of FPW.
I thought that compression of such a small WAL would not have
big effect on the reduction of WAL size. Rather, compression of
every WAL records might cause large performance overhead.
Also, focusing on FPW makes the patch very simple. We can
add the compression of other WAL later if we want.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
