Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Faster compression, again

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com>
Cc: Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Faster compression, again
Date: 2012-03-14 21:58:42
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
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 GrittnerDate: 2012-03-14 22:08:01
Subject: Re: Faster compression, again
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2012-03-14 21:38:12

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group