|From:||Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>|
|Cc:||Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Rachel Heaton <rachelmheaton(at)gmail(dot)com>|
|Subject:||Re: Add LZ4 compression in pg_dump|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 12:10:46PM +0000, gkokolatos(at)pm(dot)me wrote:
> Thank you. Please advice if is preferable to split 0002 in two parts.
> I think not but I will happily do so if you think otherwise.
This one makes me curious. What kind of split are you talking about?
If it makes the code review and the git history cleaner and easier, I
am usually a lot in favor of such incremental changes. As far as I
can see, there is the switch from the compression integer to
compression specification as one thing. The second thing is the
refactoring of cfclose() and these routines, paving the way for 0003.
Hmm, it may be cleaner to move the switch to the compression spec in
one patch, and move the logic around cfclose() to its own, paving the
way to 0003.
By the way, I think that this 0002 should drop all the default clauses
in the switches for the compression method so as we'd catch any
missing code paths with compiler warnings if a new compression method
is added in the future.
Anyway, I have applied 0001, adding you as a primary author because
you did most of it with only tweaks from me for pg_basebackup. The
docs of pg_basebackup have been amended to mention the slight change
in grammar, affecting the case where we do not have a detail string.
|Next Message||Thomas Munro||2022-11-30 00:50:51||Re: Collation version tracking for macOS|
|Previous Message||Jeff Davis||2022-11-30 00:32:52||Re: Collation version tracking for macOS|