| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ildus Kurbangaliev <i(dot)kurbangaliev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Ildar Musin <i(dot)musin(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Custom compression methods |
| Date: | 2017-12-02 20:38:39 |
| Message-ID: | 20171202203839.lvbsfyu73igrdmsu@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2017-12-02 16:04:52 +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> Firstly, it's going to be quite hard (or perhaps impossible) to find an
> algorithm that is "universally better" than pglz. Some algorithms do
> work better for text documents, some for binary blobs, etc. I don't
> think there's a win-win option.
lz4 is pretty much there.
> Secondly, all the previous attempts ran into some legal issues, i.e.
> licensing and/or patents. Maybe the situation changed since then (no
> idea, haven't looked into that), but in the past the "pluggable"
> approach was proposed as a way to address this.
Those were pretty bogus. I think we're not doing our users a favor if
they've to download some external projects, then fiddle with things,
just to not choose a compression algorithm that's been known bad for at
least 5+ years. If we've a decent algorithm in-core *and* then allow
extensibility, that's one thing, but keeping the bad and tell forks
"please take our users with this code we give you" is ...
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | legrand legrand | 2017-12-02 20:56:51 | Partition pruning for Star Schema |
| Previous Message | konstantin knizhnik | 2017-12-02 20:24:17 | Re: [HACKERS] Custom compression methods |