On Sat, Feb 07, 2009 at 02:47:05PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > daveg wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 04, 2009 at 10:23:17PM -0500, Andrew Chernow wrote: > > > Dann Corbit wrote: > > > > > > > >The LZMA SDK is granted to the public domain: > > > >http://www.7-zip.org/sdk.html > > > > > > > > > > I played with this but found the SDK extremely confusing and flat out > > > horrible. One personal dislike was the unnecessary use of C++; although > > > it > > > was the horrible API that turned me off. I'm not even sure if I ever > > > got a > > > test program working. > > > > > > LZO (http://www.oberhumer.com/opensource/lzo/) is a great algorithm, easy > > > API with many variants; my fav is LZO1X-1(15). Its known for its > > > compresison and decompresison speeds ... its blazing fast. zlib > > > typically > > > gets 5-8% more compression. > > > > LZO rocks. I wonder if the lzo developer would consider a license exception > > so that postgresql could use it? What would we need? > > The chance of us using anything but one zlib is near zero so please do > not persue this; this discussion comes up much too often.
That this comes up "much to often" suggests that there is more than near zero interest. Why can only one compression library can be considered? We use multiple readline implementations, for better or worse. I think the context here is for pg_dump only and in that context a faster compression library makes a lot of sense. I'd be happy to prepare a patch if the license issue can be accomodated. Hence my question, what sort of licence accomodation would we need to be able to use this library? -dg -- David Gould da...@sonic.net 510 536 1443 510 282 0869 If simplicity worked, the world would be overrun with insects. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
