On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 3:18 PM Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 15, 2022 at 10:15 AM Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> wrote: > > It never makes sense to compress *both* in server and client, right? > > Yeah. > > > One argument in that case for using --compress would be that we could > > have that one take options like --compress=gzip (use gzip in the > > client) and --compress=server-lz4 (use lz4 on the server), and > > automatically make it impossible to do both. And maybe also accept > > --compress=client-gzip (which would be the same as just specifying > > gzip). > > > > That would be an argument for actually keeping --compress and not > > using --client-compress, because obviously it would be silly to have > > --client-compress=server-lz4... > > I still like distinguishing it using the option name, but differently: > --compress=METHOD and --server-compress=METHOD. But this is also a > reasonable proposal. > > > And yes, I agree that considering both server and client compression > > even if we don't have server compression makes sense, since we don't > > want to change things around again when we get it. > > Especially not because I'm pretty close to having a committable patch > and intend to try to get this into v15. See the refactoring > basebackup.c thread. > > > We could perhaps also consider accepting --compress=gzip:7 > > (<method>:<level>) as a way to specify the level, for both client and > > server side. > > That's not crazy either. Initially I was thinking --compression=gzip7 > but then it turns out lz4 is one of the methods we want to use, and > lz47 would be, err, slightly unclear. lz4:7 is better, for sure. > > > I think having --client-compress and --server-compress separately but > > having --compression-level *not* being separate would be confusing and > > I *think* that's what th e current patch proposes? > > Depends on what you mean by "separate". There's no proposal to have > --client-compression-level and also --server-compression-level.
I mean that I think it would be confusing to have --client-compression=x, --server-compression=y, and compression-level=z as the options. Why, in that scenario, does the "compression" part get two parameters, but the "compression level" part get one. In that case, there should either be --compression=x and --compression-level=z (which is what I'd suggest, per above), or there should be --client-compression, --server-compression, --client-compression-level and --server-compression-level, for it to be consistent. But having one of them be split in two parameters and the other one not, is what I'd consider confusing. -- Magnus Hagander Me: https://www.hagander.net/ Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/
