On Friday, December 28, 2012 3:52 PM Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 28 December 2012 08:07, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
> <horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
>
> > Hello, I saw this patch and confirmed that
> >
> > - Coding style looks good.
> > - Appliable onto HEAD.
> > - Some mis-codings are fixed.
>
> I've had a quick review of the patch to see how close we're getting.
> The perf tests look to me like we're getting what we wanted from this
> and I'm happy with the recovery performance trade-offs. Well done to
> both author and testers.
>
>
> * The compression algorithm depends completely upon new row length
> savings. If the new row is short, it would seem easier to just skip
> the checks and include it anyway. We can say if old and new vary in
> length by > 50% of each other, just include new as-is, since the rows
> very clearly differ in a big way.
> Also, if tuple is same length as
> before, can we compare the whole tuple at once to save doing
> per-column checks?
If we have to do whole tuple comparison then storing of changed parts might
need to be
be done in a byte-by-byte way rather then at column offset boundaries.
This might not be possible with current algorithm as it stores in WAL
information column-by-column and decrypts also in similar way.
> The internal docs are completely absent. We need at least a whole page of
descriptive > comment, discussing trade-offs and design decisions.
Currently I have planned to put it transam/README, as most of WAL
description is present there.
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.