Re: Add LZ4 compression in pg_dump

From: Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: gkokolatos(at)pm(dot)me
Cc: Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com>, "shiy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <shiy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Rachel Heaton <rachelmheaton(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Add LZ4 compression in pg_dump
Date: 2023-03-17 16:56:58
Message-ID: 319aa3e3-e443-5a79-1c84-c4a4c0b9a8bb@enterprisedb.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 3/17/23 16:43, gkokolatos(at)pm(dot)me wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>> I agree it's cleaner the way you did it.
>>
>> I was thinking that with each compression function handling error
>> internally, the callers would not need to do that. But I haven't
>> realized there's logic to detect ENOSPC and so on, and we'd need to
>> duplicate that in every compression func.
>>
>
> If you agree, I can prepare a patch to improve on the error handling
> aspect of the API as a separate thread, since here we are trying to
> focus on correctness.
>

Yes, that makes sense. There are far too many patches in this thread
already ...

regards

--
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2023-03-17 17:44:12 Re: pg_dump versus hash partitioning
Previous Message Tomas Vondra 2023-03-17 16:41:11 Re: Memory leak from ExecutorState context?