| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Georgios Kokolatos <gkokolatos(at)pm(dot)me>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Jeevan Ladhe <jeevan(dot)ladhe(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Refactoring of compression options in pg_basebackup |
| Date: | 2022-01-18 01:36:04 |
| Message-ID: | YeYZhCSgTT+V+dUt@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 12:48:12PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> Alvaro's proposal is fine with me. I don't see any value in replacing
> --compress with --compression. It's longer but not superior in any way
> that I can see. Having both seems worst of all -- that's just
> confusing.
Okay, that looks like a consensus, then. Robert, would it be better
to gather all that on the thread that deals with the server-side
compression? Doing that here would be fine by me, with the option to
only specify the client. Now it would be a bit weird to do things
with only the client part and not the server part :)
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Nancarrow | 2022-01-18 01:36:21 | Re: Skipping logical replication transactions on subscriber side |
| Previous Message | Amit Langote | 2022-01-18 01:32:57 | Re: generic plans and "initial" pruning |