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
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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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