From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com> |
Cc: | Huchev <hugochevrain(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pluggable compression support |
Date: | 2013-10-02 15:03:42 |
Message-ID: | CA+Tgmoaeo5H-HiHmdY-0sHBU5XtAzrfPrt58bPE6nBb81txi8A@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 9:56 PM, Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 1:49 PM, Huchev <hugochevrain(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> How come any compressor which could put some competition to pglz is
>> systematically pushed out of the field on the ground of unverifiable "legal
>> risks" ?
>
> Because pglz has been around for a while and has not caused patent
> trouble. The risks have been accepted and the downsides have not
> materialized. Were pglz were being written and distributed starting
> today, perhaps your reasoning would be more compelling, but as-is the
> pglz ship has sailed for quite some time and empirically it has not
> been a problem.
>
> That said, I hope the findings are in favor of lz4 or snappy
> integration. It does seem lz4 has picked up a slight edge.
Yeah, I'm also in favor of a new compression format, whatever we can
agree on. However, I'm uncertain we're actually moving toward that
goal in any meaningful way.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2013-10-02 15:05:01 | Re: logical changeset generation v6.1 |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2013-10-02 15:00:30 | Re: insert throw error when year field len > 4 for timestamptz datatype |