| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jacob Burroughs <jburroughs(at)instructure(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres(at)jeltef(dot)nl>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: libpq compression (part 3) |
| Date: | 2024-01-12 21:11:19 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZy43rBVypyHujU-ZZuprv4Uh3zYCLO4Yzh2EjeR3A2AA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 4:02 PM Jacob Burroughs
<jburroughs(at)instructure(dot)com> wrote:
> > I wonder if we could use "upstream" and "downstream" to be clearer? Or
> > some other terminology?
>
> What about `send` and `receive`?
I think that would definitely be better than "compress" and
"decompress," but I was worried that it might be unclear to the user
whether the parameter that they specified was from the point of view
of the client or the server. Perhaps that's a dumb thing to worry
about, though.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2024-01-12 21:25:53 | Re: plpgsql memory leaks |
| Previous Message | Melanie Plageman | 2024-01-12 21:05:35 | Re: Emit fewer vacuum records by reaping removable tuples during pruning |