| From: | Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Huchev <hugochevrain(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pluggable compression support |
| Date: | 2013-10-02 01:56:52 |
| Message-ID: | CAAZKuFYFYj1v=aLme7Mny4U92RXhLiQ6L_7Sukm-PLbv2iaW+Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2013-10-02 02:12:05 | Re: relscan_details.h |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2013-10-02 01:33:39 | Re: [PATCH] pg_upgrade: Split off pg_fatal() from pg_log() |