On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 2:03 PM, Merlin Moncure <mmonc...@gmail.com> wrote: > er, typo: I meant to say: "*non-gpl* lz based..." :-).
Given that, few I would say have had the traction that LZO and Snappy have had, even though in many respects they are interchangeable in the general trade-off spectrum. The question is: what burden of proof is required to convince the project that Snappy does not have exorbitant patent issues, in proportion to the utility of having a compression scheme of this type integrated? One would think Google's lawyers did their homework to ensure they would not be trolled for hideous sums of money by disclosing and releasing the exact implementation of the compression used virtually everywhere. If anything, that may have been a more complicated issue than writing and releasing yet-another-LZ77 implementation. -- fdr -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
