Re: Fixes for compression options of pg_receivewal and refactoring of backup_compression.{c,h}

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Georgios <gkokolatos(at)protonmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Fixes for compression options of pg_receivewal and refactoring of backup_compression.{c,h}
Date: 2022-04-11 22:50:29
Message-ID: YlSwtX6xXipArwJ5@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 11:15:46AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> +1 for this in general, but I think that naming like
> "compression_algo" stinks. If you think "compression_algorithm" is too
> long, I think you should use "algorithm" or "compression" or
> "compression_method" or something.

Yes, I found "compression_algorithm" to be too long initially. For
walmethods.c and pg_receivewal.c, it may be better to just stick to
"algorithm" then, at least that's consistent with pg_basebackup.c.
--
Michael

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2022-04-11 22:50:49 Re: Is RecoveryConflictInterrupt() entirely safe in a signal handler?
Previous Message Thomas Munro 2022-04-11 22:33:28 Re: Is RecoveryConflictInterrupt() entirely safe in a signal handler?