Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2018 13:42:54 -0500
From: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
To: Markus Nullmeier <dq124@uni-heidelberg.de>
Cc: David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org,
	Oleg Ivanov <o.ivanov@postgrespro.ru>,
	Antonin Houska <ah@cybertec.at>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: generic WAL compression
Message-ID: <20180207184254.GR2416@tamriel.snowman.net>
References: <59F90ABF.2060407@postgrespro.ru>
 <23990.1510853483@localhost>
 <20180122213752.GV2416@tamriel.snowman.net>
 <f9841962-4aa3-1b67-007f-b6d73500a1d0@pgmasters.net>
 <6147f19c-9a8d-1e82-442f-08d5b1860d3f@ix.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="2dupmSpD9F6E5m5S"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <6147f19c-9a8d-1e82-442f-08d5b1860d3f@ix.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Precedence: bulk


--2dupmSpD9F6E5m5S
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Greetings,

* Markus Nullmeier (dq124@uni-heidelberg.de) wrote:
> On 07/02/18 18:31, David Steele wrote:
>=20
> > This proposal is still in need of review and hasn't really gotten it in
> > the last few CFs.
>=20
> Agreed.
>=20
> > Since the feature does not seem like a good fit for the last CF of PG11
> > I am marking it Returned with Feedback.
>=20
> Is there any chance that it may be still resubmitted / reopened for the
> March CF?

Of course, you're certainly welcome to resubmit it to a future CF.  As
we're getting close to the end of this release cycle, I tend to think it
would be appropriate to submit it for the post-11 CF rather than the one
in March.

> Actually right now I am in the process of reviewing it, for it would be
> really useful for my "OUZO" project (a fork of the RUM access method).

Glad to hear that you're continuing to work on it.

> One general comment I can already make is that enabling compression
> should be made optional, which appears to be a small and easy addition
> to the generic WAL API.

The question would be- is there a way for us to determine when it should
be enabled or not enabled, or do we have to ask the user to tell us?
Asking the user is something we'd really not do unless we absolutely
have to.  Much better is if we can figure out when it's best to enable
or disable (or use/not use) based on some criteria and do so
automatically.

Thanks!

Stephen

--2dupmSpD9F6E5m5S
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
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=upW9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--2dupmSpD9F6E5m5S--