Re: copy with compression progress n

[Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>]

Andreas Pflug <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de> writes:
> The attached patch implements COPY ... WITH [BINARY] COMPRESSION 
> (compression implies BINARY). The copy data uses bit 17 of the flag 
> field to identify compressed data.

I think this is a pretty horrid idea, because it changes pg_lzcompress
from an unimportant implementation detail into a backup file format
that we have to support till the end of time.  What happens if, say,
we need to abandon pg_lzcompress because we find out it has patent
problems?

It *might* be tolerable if we used gzip instead, but I really don't see
the argument for doing this inside the server at all: piping to gzip
seems like a perfectly acceptable solution, quite possibly with higher
performance than doing it all in a single process (which isn't going
to be able to use more than one CPU).

I don't see the argument for restricting it to binary only, either.

			regards, tom lane