Re: directory archive format for pg_dump

From: Joachim Wieland <joe(at)mcknight(dot)de>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: directory archive format for pg_dump
Date: 2010-11-19 23:53:22
Message-ID: AANLkTi=Q+UNRNGiKu+wxKvnMsBBNruNjT4gNiyCUuEKb@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 11:53 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr> writes:
> > I think I'd like to see a separate patch for the new compression
> > support. Sorry about that, I realize that's extra work…
>
> That part of the patch is likely to get rejected outright anyway,
> so I *strongly* recommend splitting it out. We have generally resisted
> adding random compression algorithms to pg_dump because of license and
> patent considerations, and I see no reason to suppose this one is going
> to pass muster.
>

I was already anticipating that possiblitiy and my inital patch description
is along these lines.

However, liblzf is BSD licensed so on the license side we should be fine.
Regarding patents, your last comment was that you'd like to see if it's
really worth it and so I have included support for lzf for anybody to go
ahead and find that out.

Will send an updated split up patch this weekend (which would actually be
four patches already...).

Joachim

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2010-11-19 23:57:38 Re: Latches with weak memory ordering (Re: max_wal_senders must die)
Previous Message Jeff Janes 2010-11-19 23:29:27 Re: Fwd: patch: format function - fixed oid