Re: [PING] fallocate() causes btrfs to never compress postgresql files
От | Magnus Hagander |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [PING] fallocate() causes btrfs to never compress postgresql files |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CABUevExxDKNsnwJ_hmt7Y4k_0zjy6wMoqsTBAEUZix4EkKQvnA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [PING] fallocate() causes btrfs to never compress postgresql files (Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jul 11, 2025 at 12:45 AM Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Jul 11, 2025 at 5:39 AM Dimitrios Apostolou <jimis@gmx.net> wrote:
> > I applied the patch on PostgreSQL v17 and am testing it now. I chose
> > ftruncate method and I see ftruncate in action using strace while doing
> > pg_restore of a big database. Nothing unexpected has happened so far. I also
> > verified that files are being compressed, obeying Btrfs's mount option
> > compress=zstd.
> >
> > Thanks for the patch! What are the odds of commiting it to v17?
>
> Ping. :-)
> Patch behaves good for me. Any chance of applying it and backporting it?
Yeah, this seems to make sense, as it is a pretty bad regression for
people who are counting on BTRFS compression for their large database.
Not so sure about the threshold bit -- I'd probably leave that out of
the backport in the interest of stable branch-minimalism. Anyone have
any better ideas, better naming, or objections?
Not just to throw a wrench in there, but... Should this perhaps be a tablespace option? ISTM having different filesystems for them is a good reason to use tablespaces in the first place, and then being able to pick different options...
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: