On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 9:56 PM, Daniel Farina <dan...@heroku.com> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 1:49 PM, Huchev <hugochevr...@gmail.com> wrote: >> How come any compressor which could put some competition to pglz is >> systematically pushed out of the field on the ground of unverifiable "legal >> risks" ? > > Because pglz has been around for a while and has not caused patent > trouble. The risks have been accepted and the downsides have not > materialized. Were pglz were being written and distributed starting > today, perhaps your reasoning would be more compelling, but as-is the > pglz ship has sailed for quite some time and empirically it has not > been a problem. > > That said, I hope the findings are in favor of lz4 or snappy > integration. It does seem lz4 has picked up a slight edge.
Yeah, I'm also in favor of a new compression format, whatever we can agree on. However, I'm uncertain we're actually moving toward that goal in any meaningful way. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
