* Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote: > On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 10:55:04AM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > > * Peter Eisentraut (pete...@gmx.net) wrote: > > > Operating on compressed files transparently in file_fdw is obviously > > > useful, but why only gzip? > > > > This isn't really an argument, imv. It's only gzip *right this moment* > > because that's all that I implemented. I've already offered to add > > bzip2 or whatever else people would like. > > And this leads to support-my-compression-binary-of-the-day mess. Why > not just allow them to do '|compression-binary'?
You're right, to clarify, for *file_fdw*, which is a backend-only
operation, the popen patch is great (thought I made that clear before).
The popen patch doesn't support the '|compression-binary' option through
the FE protocol. Even if it did, it would only be available for
superusers as we can't allow regular users to run arbitrary commands on
the server-side.
Thanks,
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
