Re: Refactoring of compression options in pg_basebackup

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Georgios Kokolatos <gkokolatos(at)pm(dot)me>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Jeevan Ladhe <jeevan(dot)ladhe(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Refactoring of compression options in pg_basebackup
Date: 2022-01-17 15:16:44
Message-ID: CA+TgmoYE3UTkR0p2pGKTHsOTLygVnWOrBYUivjGFpG7mG-Tg0g@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 9:27 AM Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
> I mean that I think it would be confusing to have
> --client-compression=x, --server-compression=y, and
> compression-level=z as the options. Why, in that scenario, does the
> "compression" part get two parameters, but the "compression level"
> part get one. In that case, there should either be --compression=x and
> --compression-level=z (which is what I'd suggest, per above), or there
> should be --client-compression, --server-compression,
> --client-compression-level and --server-compression-level, for it to
> be consistent. But having one of them be split in two parameters and
> the other one not, is what I'd consider confusing.

I don't find that confusing, but confusion is a pretty subjective
experience so that doesn't really prove anything. Of the two
alternatives that you propose, I prefer --compress=["server-"]METHOD
and --compression-level=NUMBER to having both
--client-compression-level and --server-compression-level. To me,
that's still a bit more surprising than my proposal, because having
the client compress stuff and having the server compress stuff feel
like somewhat different kinds of things ... but it's unsurprising that
I like my own proposal, and what really matters is that we converge
relatively quickly on something we can all live with.

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Zhihong Yu 2022-01-17 15:20:22 Re: a misbehavior of partition row movement (?)
Previous Message Robert Haas 2022-01-17 15:12:24 Re: Removing more vacuumlazy.c special cases, relfrozenxid optimizations