Re: Different compression methods for FPI - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: Different compression methods for FPI
Date
Msg-id d220fdbf-c9fc-6408-ff2b-07f5a9a23e2c@enterprisedb.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Different compression methods for FPI  (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>)
Responses Re: Different compression methods for FPI  (Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 15.06.21 07:37, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>> Actually, I was just thinking that default yes/no/on/off stuff maybe should be
>>> defined to mean "lz4" rather than meaning pglz for "backwards compatibility".
>> +1
> I am not sure that we have any reasons to be that aggressive about
> this one either, and this would mean that wal_compression=on implies a
> different method depending on the build options.  I would just stick
> with the past, careful practice that we have to use a default
> backward-compatible value as default, while being able to use a new
> option.

If we think this new thing is strictly better than the old thing, then 
why not make it the default.  What would be the gain from sticking to 
the old default?

The point that the default would depend on build options is a valid one. 
  I'm not sure whether it's important enough by itself.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: Different compression methods for FPI
Next
From: Kyotaro Horiguchi
Date:
Subject: Re: Race condition in recovery?