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 |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
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
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Marko Kreen | 2006-05-31 14:57:47 | Re: [PATCH] Magic block for modules |
Previous Message | Yannick | 2006-05-31 14:17:08 | Re: Compile libpq with vc8 |