Re: Improving compressibility of WAL files

Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> writes:
> Yes, we could make the archiver do this, but I see no big advantage over
> having it done externally. It's not faster, safer, easier. Not easier
> because we would want a parameter to turn it off when not wanted.

And the other question to ask is how much effort and code should we be
putting into the concept anyway.  AFAICS, file-at-a-time WAL shipping
is a stopgap implementation that will be dead as a doornail once the
current efforts towards realtime replication are finished.  There will
still be some use for forced log switches in connection with backups,
but that's not going to occur often enough to be important to optimize.
        regards, tom lane