| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Faster compression, again |
| Date: | 2012-03-14 21:58:42 |
| Message-ID: | 6302.1331762322@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com> writes:
> Given that, few I would say have had the traction that LZO and Snappy
> have had, even though in many respects they are interchangeable in the
> general trade-off spectrum. The question is: what burden of proof is
> required to convince the project that Snappy does not have exorbitant
> patent issues, in proportion to the utility of having a compression
> scheme of this type integrated?
Another not-exactly-trivial requirement is to figure out how to not
break on-disk compatibility when installing an alternative compression
scheme. In hindsight it might've been a good idea if pglz_compress had
wasted a little bit of space on some sort of version identifier ...
but it didn't.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2012-03-14 22:08:01 | Re: Faster compression, again |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-03-14 21:38:12 | Re: CREATE FOREGIN TABLE LACUNA |