Re: [REVIEW] Re: Compression of full-page-writes

On 2014-12-06 00:10:11 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 12:06 AM, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 11:10 PM, Rahila Syed <rahilasyed.90@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> I attempted quick review and could not come up with much except this
> >>
> >> +   /*
> >> +    * Calculate the amount of FPI data in the record. Each backup block
> >> +    * takes up BLCKSZ bytes, minus the "hole" length.
> >> +    *
> >> +    * XXX: We peek into xlogreader's private decoded backup blocks for
> >> the
> >> +    * hole_length. It doesn't seem worth it to add an accessor macro for
> >> +    * this.
> >> +    */
> >> +   fpi_len = 0;
> >> +   for (block_id = 0; block_id <= record->max_block_id; block_id++)
> >> +   {
> >> +       if (XLogRecHasCompressedBlockImage(record, block_id))
> >> +           fpi_len += BLCKSZ - record->blocks[block_id].compress_len;
> >>
> >>
> >> IIUC, fpi_len in case of compressed block image should be
> >>
> >> fpi_len = record->blocks[block_id].compress_len;
> >>
> > Yep, true. Patches need a rebase btw as Heikki fixed a commit related to
> > the stats of pg_xlogdump.
> >
>
> In any case, any opinions to switch this patch as "Ready for committer"?

Needing a rebase is a obvious conflict to that... But I guess some wider
looks afterwards won't hurt.