| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Georgios <gkokolatos(at)protonmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Rachel Heaton <rachelmheaton(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Add LZ4 compression in pg_dump |
| Date: | 2022-03-29 13:14:03 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYd2XBJ_vzHUKwR6u+usmNNQvz+2J+ZDWhrMYXCGGP2Fw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 1:03 AM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> > Then, if people are willing to adopt the syntax that the
> > backup_compression.c/h stuff supports as a project standard (+1 from
> > me) we can go the other way and rename that stuff to be more generic,
> > taking backup out of the name.
>
> I am not sure about the specification part which is only used by base
> backups that has no client-server requirements, so option values would
> still require their own grammar.
I don't know what you mean by this. I think the specification stuff
could be reused in a lot of places. If you can ask for a base backup
with zstd:level=3,long=1,fancystuff=yes or whatever we end up with,
why not enable exactly the same for every other place that uses
compression? I don't know what "client-server requirements" is or what
that has to do with this.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2022-03-29 13:28:26 | Re: standby recovery fails (tablespace related) (tentative patch and discussion) |
| Previous Message | Aleksander Alekseev | 2022-03-29 13:09:14 | Re: XID formatting and SLRU refactorings (was: Add 64-bit XIDs into PostgreSQL 15) |