On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 8:35 PM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 7:44 PM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> > This suggest that pipes do have a considerably higher overhead on
> > windows, but that it's not all that terrible if one takes care to use
> > large buffers in each pipe element.
> >
> > It's notable though that even the simplest use of a pipe does add a
> > considerable overhead compared to using the files directly.
>
> Thanks for these results. I think that this shows that it's probably
> not a great idea to force everything to go through pipes in every
> case, but on the other hand, there's no reason to be a particularly
> scared of the performance implications of letting some things go
> through pipes. For instance, if we decide that LZ4 compression is
> going to be a good choice for most users, we might want to do that
> in-process rather than via pipes.
>
How will the user know how to use this compressed backup? I mean to
say if we use some compression algorithm to compress the data then the
user should know how to decompress and use the backup. IIUC, if
currently, the user uses tar format to backup, it can simply untar it
and start the server but will that be possible if we provide some
in-built compression methods like LZ4?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com