Daniel Farina <dan...@heroku.com> writes:
> 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?
Another not-exactly-trivial requirement is to figure out how to not
break on-disk compatibility when installing an alternative compression
scheme. In hindsight it might've been a good idea if pglz_compress had
wasted a little bit of space on some sort of version identifier ...
but it didn't.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
