Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: copy with compression progress n

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andreas Pflug <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: copy with compression progress n
Date: 2006-05-31 14:27:12
Message-ID: 12096.1149085632@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Andreas Pflug <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de> writes:
> The attached patch implements COPY ... WITH [BINARY] COMPRESSION 
> (compression implies BINARY). The copy data uses bit 17 of the flag 
> field to identify compressed data.

I think this is a pretty horrid idea, because it changes pg_lzcompress
from an unimportant implementation detail into a backup file format
that we have to support till the end of time.  What happens if, say,
we need to abandon pg_lzcompress because we find out it has patent
problems?

It *might* be tolerable if we used gzip instead, but I really don't see
the argument for doing this inside the server at all: piping to gzip
seems like a perfectly acceptable solution, quite possibly with higher
performance than doing it all in a single process (which isn't going
to be able to use more than one CPU).

I don't see the argument for restricting it to binary only, either.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Marko KreenDate: 2006-05-31 14:57:47
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Magic block for modules
Previous:From: YannickDate: 2006-05-31 14:17:08
Subject: Re: Compile libpq with vc8

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group