Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> writes:
> I must be missing something obvious, but why don't we compress the
> xlogs? They appear to be quite compressable (>75%) with standard gzip...
Might be worth experimenting with, but I'm a bit dubious. We've seen
several tests showing that XLogInsert's calculation of a CRC for each
WAL record is a bottleneck (that's why we backed off from 64-bit CRC
to 32-bit recently). I'd think that any nontrivial compression
algorithm would be vastly slower than CRC ...
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
