Robert Haas wrote: > > 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? > > Based on previous discussions, I suspect that the answer here is > "complete relicensing as BSD". I think pursuing any sort of licensing > exception is completely futile as there will still be restrictions > that will be unacceptable to many in the community. > > But if someone had an actual BSD-LICENSED compression library that was > better than what we have now, I'm not sure why Bruce (or anyone) > should be opposed to incorporating it. It's just that all of the > proposals that come up for this sort of thing aren't that.
You can be I would oppose it. It is not efficient for us to support every compression-of-the-month project that comes along. If something was BSD, well tested, and clearly superior, we might consider it, but I have seen nothing like that for 10 years and I doubt I will see something the next 5. I am thinking we need to add this to the "Features we do not want" section of our todo list. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
