Horton

Re: wal_compression=zstd

Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
To: Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>
Cc: Andrey Borodin <x4mmm@yandex-team.ru>, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Date: 2022-03-11T03:23:59Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Wed, Mar 09, 2022 at 07:14:11AM -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> Anyway there's no compelling reason to not use the default.  If we were to use
> a non-default default, we'd have to choose between 1 and 2 (or some negative
> compression level).  My thinking was that zstd-1 would give the lowest-hanging
> fruits for zstd, while minimizing performance tradeoff, since WAL affects
> interactivity.  But choosing between 1 and 2 seems like bikeshedding.

Yeah, I have looked again at the patch today, and I saw no reason to
not apply it to give more options to the user as zstd or lz4 are both
good in their own ways.  So done, with the default level used.
--
Michael

Commits

  1. Bump XLOG_PAGE_MAGIC due to the addition of wal_compression=zstd

  2. Add support for zstd with compression of full-page writes in WAL