Re: pluggable compression support

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pluggable compression support
Date: 2013-06-15 00:35:02
Message-ID: 51BBB6B6.2040306@agliodbs.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


> No. I think as long as we only have pglz and one new algorithm (even if
> that is lz4 instead of the current snappy) we should just always use the
> new algorithm. Unless I missed it nobody seemed to have voiced a
> contrary position?
> For testing/evaluation the guc seems to be sufficient.

Then it's not "pluggable", is it? It's "upgradable compression
support", if anything. Which is fine, but let's not confuse people.

--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2013-06-15 00:45:57 Re: pluggable compression support
Previous Message Greg Stark 2013-06-15 00:32:49 Re: [RFC] Minmax indexes