Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com> writes:
> Given that, few I would say have had the traction that LZO and Snappy
> have had, even though in many respects they are interchangeable in the
> general trade-off spectrum. The question is: what burden of proof is
> required to convince the project that Snappy does not have exorbitant
> patent issues, in proportion to the utility of having a compression
> scheme of this type integrated?
Another not-exactly-trivial requirement is to figure out how to not
break on-disk compatibility when installing an alternative compression
scheme. In hindsight it might've been a good idea if pglz_compress had
wasted a little bit of space on some sort of version identifier ...
but it didn't.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Kevin Grittner||Date: 2012-03-14 22:08:01|
|Subject: Re: Faster compression, again|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2012-03-14 21:38:12|
|Subject: Re: CREATE FOREGIN TABLE LACUNA |