On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 1:03 AM Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote: > > Then, if people are willing to adopt the syntax that the > > backup_compression.c/h stuff supports as a project standard (+1 from > > me) we can go the other way and rename that stuff to be more generic, > > taking backup out of the name. > > I am not sure about the specification part which is only used by base > backups that has no client-server requirements, so option values would > still require their own grammar.
I don't know what you mean by this. I think the specification stuff could be reused in a lot of places. If you can ask for a base backup with zstd:level=3,long=1,fancystuff=yes or whatever we end up with, why not enable exactly the same for every other place that uses compression? I don't know what "client-server requirements" is or what that has to do with this. -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
