On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 03:52:06PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 1:29 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Yeah. My belief here is that users might bother to change >> default_toast_compression, or that we might do it for them in a few >> years, but the gains from doing so are going to be only incremental. >> That being the case, most DBAs will be content to allow the older >> compression method to age out of their databases through routine row >> updates. The idea that somebody is going to be excited enough about >> this to run a downtime-inducing VACUUM FULL doesn't really pass the >> smell test. > > That was my original understanding of your position, FWIW. I agree > with all of this.
If one wishes to enforce a compression method on a table, the only way I could see through here, able to bypass the downtime constraint, is by using logical replication. Anybody willing to enforce a new default compression may accept the cost of setting up instances for that. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
