From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
Cc: | Albe Laurenz <all(at)adv(dot)magwien(dot)gv(dot)at>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Compression and on-disk sorting |
Date: | 2006-05-17 14:25:01 |
Message-ID: | 19684.1147875901@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> writes:
> Clever idea, pity we can't use it (what's the bet it's patented?). I'd
> wager anything beyond simple compression is patented by someone.
You're in for a rude awakening: even "simple compression" is anything
but simple. As I said, it's a minefield of patents. I recall reading a
very long statement by one of the zlib developers (Jean-loup Gailly, I
think) explaining exactly how they had threaded their way through that
minefield, and why they were different enough from half-a-dozen
similar-looking patented methods to not infringe any of them.
I feel fairly confident that zlib is patent-free, first because they did
their homework and second because they've now been out there and highly
visible for a good long time without getting sued. I've got no such
confidence in any other random algorithm you might choose --- in fact,
I'm not at all sure that pg_lzcompress.c is safe. If we were
aggressively trying to avoid patent risks we might well consider
dropping pg_lzcompress.c and using zlib exclusively.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2006-05-17 14:27:15 | Re: PL/pgSQL 'i = i + 1' Syntax |
Previous Message | Stephan Szabo | 2006-05-17 14:19:45 | Foreign key column reference ordering and information_schema |