On 2014-12-31 16:09:31 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> I still don't understand the value of adding WAL compression, given the
> high CPU usage and minimal performance improvement. The only big
> advantage is WAL storage, but again, why not just compress the WAL file
> when archiving.
before: pg_xlog is 800GB
after: pg_xlog is 600GB.
I'm damned sure that many people would be happy with that, even if the
*per backend* overhead is a bit higher. And no, compression of archives
when archiving helps *zap* with that (streaming, wal_keep_segments,
checkpoint_timeout). As discussed before.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
-- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training &
Services