> That this comes up "much to often" suggests that there is more than near
> zero interest. Why can only one compression library can be considered?
> We use multiple readline implementations, for better or worse.
> I think the context here is for pg_dump only and in that context a faster
> compression library makes a lot of sense. I'd be happy to prepare a patch
> if the license issue can be accomodated. Hence my question, what sort of
> licence accomodation would we need to be able to use this library?
Based on previous discussions, I suspect that the answer here is
"complete relicensing as BSD". I think pursuing any sort of licensing
exception is completely futile as there will still be restrictions
that will be unacceptable to many in the community.
But if someone had an actual BSD-LICENSED compression library that was
better than what we have now, I'm not sure why Bruce (or anyone)
should be opposed to incorporating it. It's just that all of the
proposals that come up for this sort of thing aren't that.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2009-02-07 21:53:15|
|Subject: Re: Is a plan for lmza commpression in pg_dump|
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2009-02-07 21:38:06|
|Subject: Re: FWD: Re: Updated backslash consistency patch|