Re: pluggable compression support

From: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pluggable compression support
Date: 2013-06-15 02:02:43
Message-ID: 51BBCB43.5060207@commandprompt.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


On 06/14/2013 06:56 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 8:45 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> On 2013-06-14 17:35:02 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
>>>
>>>> No. I think as long as we only have pglz and one new algorithm (even if
>>>> that is lz4 instead of the current snappy) we should just always use the
>>>> new algorithm. Unless I missed it nobody seemed to have voiced a
>>>> contrary position?
>>>> For testing/evaluation the guc seems to be sufficient.
>>>
>>> Then it's not "pluggable", is it? It's "upgradable compression
>>> support", if anything. Which is fine, but let's not confuse people.
>>
>> The point is that it's pluggable on the storage level in the sense of
>> that several different algorithms can coexist and new ones can
>> relatively easily added.
>> That part is what seems to have blocked progress for quite a while
>> now. So fixing that seems to be the interesting thing.
>>
>> I am happy enough to do the work of making it configurable if we want it
>> to be... But I have zap interest of doing it and throw it away in the
>> end because we decide we don't need it.
>
> I don't think we need it. I think what we need is to decide is which
> algorithm is legally OK to use. And then put it in.
>
> In the past, we've had a great deal of speculation about that legal
> question from people who are not lawyers. Maybe it would be valuable
> to get some opinions from people who ARE lawyers. Tom and Heikki both
> work for real big companies which, I'm guessing, have substantial
> legal departments; perhaps they could pursue getting the algorithms of
> possible interest vetted. Or, I could try to find out whether it's
> possible do something similar through EnterpriseDB.

We have IP legal representation through Software in the Public interest
who pretty much specializes in this type of thing.

Should I follow up? If so, I need a summary of the exact question
including licenses etc.

JD

>

--
Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/ 509-416-6579
PostgreSQL Support, Training, Professional Services and Development
High Availability, Oracle Conversion, Postgres-XC, @cmdpromptinc
For my dreams of your image that blossoms
a rose in the deeps of my heart. - W.B. Yeats

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Craig Ringer 2013-06-15 03:46:45 Re: [PATCH] Remove useless USE_PGXS support in contrib
Previous Message Robert Haas 2013-06-15 01:56:52 Re: pluggable compression support