Re: [HACKERS] gzip vs bzip2 in packing

From: Taral <taral(at)cyberjunkie(dot)com>
To: hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] gzip vs bzip2 in packing
Date: 1999-01-21 06:05:11
Message-ID: 99012100060700.11895@taral.dobiecenter.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, 20 Jan 1999, you wrote:
>Eventually something will come along that's enough better than gzip
>to warrant a universal upgrade cycle, but as far as I can see bzip2
>ain't it. In any case I see no need for Postgres to be out front of
>the curve on this question...

Err, I was actually recommending we do like many sites, and put up gzip and
bzip2 versions of the tarball. Those with bzip2 can download the (smaller)
bzip2 version, and save network bandwidth (and time, for those with modems).

Taral

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thomas G. Lockhart 1999-01-21 06:12:25 Re: [HACKERS] Re: Beta test of Postgresql 6.5
Previous Message Tom Lane 1999-01-21 05:54:38 Re: [HACKERS] gzip vs bzip2 in packing