On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 9:27 AM Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> wrote: > 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.
I don't find that confusing, but confusion is a pretty subjective experience so that doesn't really prove anything. Of the two alternatives that you propose, I prefer --compress=["server-"]METHOD and --compression-level=NUMBER to having both --client-compression-level and --server-compression-level. To me, that's still a bit more surprising than my proposal, because having the client compress stuff and having the server compress stuff feel like somewhat different kinds of things ... but it's unsurprising that I like my own proposal, and what really matters is that we converge relatively quickly on something we can all live with. -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
