Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2022 22:28:44 -0600
From: Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
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>
Subject: Re: wal_compression=zstd
Message-ID: <20220311042844.GJ28503@telsasoft.com>
References: <20220222231948.GJ9008@telsasoft.com>
 <YiG9hOS/vivHvJny@paquier.xyz>
 <20220304114405.GK27651@telsasoft.com>
 <20220309131411.GZ27651@telsasoft.com>
 <YirAz/JQ/re059t5@paquier.xyz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YirAz/JQ/re059t5@paquier.xyz>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20220311042844.GJ28503%40telsasoft.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 12:23:59PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> 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.

It's great news - thanks.

-- 
Justin