From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Daniel Migowski <dmigowski(at)ikoffice(dot)de>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Feature Request: bzip2 support in pg_dump, pg_restore |
Date: | 2010-08-13 14:47:30 |
Message-ID: | 23875.1281710850@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> Daniel Migowski wrote:
>> A small investigation showed to me that bzip2 compressed sql files
>> take only 60% of the space of gz compressed files. Since bzip2 is
>> fairly common today, could one add an option to pg_dump and pg_restore
>> supporting this compression type in their custom format? Or do the
>> PostgreSQL folks prefer no to do that regarding backwards compatibility?
> http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Developer_FAQ#Why_aren.27t_there_more_compression_options_when_dumping_tables.3F
> now has a first round answer to this topic, one that addresses the
> things that pop up every time this discussion is raised. There are
> speed, code quality, code license, and patent issues all making this
> much harder to change than is obvious at first.
Looks good. I added the point that pg_dump output has to be readable
far into the future, so conservatism in what we support is a good thing.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2010-08-13 14:50:41 | Re: Compression on SSL links? |
Previous Message | Craig Ringer | 2010-08-13 14:43:16 | Re: Compression on SSL links? |