On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 2:03 PM, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> er, typo: I meant to say: "*non-gpl* lz based..." :-).
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?
One would think Google's lawyers did their homework to ensure they
would not be trolled for hideous sums of money by disclosing and
releasing the exact implementation of the compression used virtually
everywhere. If anything, that may have been a more complicated issue
than writing and releasing yet-another-LZ77 implementation.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2012-03-14 21:13:22|
|Subject: Re: patch for parallel pg_dump|
|Previous:||From: Merlin Moncure||Date: 2012-03-14 21:03:02|
|Subject: Re: Faster compression, again|