On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 2014-09-11 13:04:43 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 12:58 PM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> >> wrote: >> > On 2014-09-11 12:55:21 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> >> I advise supporting pglz only for the initial patch, and adding >> >> support for the others later if it seems worthwhile. The approach >> >> seems to work well enough with pglz that it's worth doing even if we >> >> never add the other algorithms. >> > >> > That approach is fine with me. Note though that I am pretty strongly >> > against adding support for more than one algorithm at the same time. >> >> What if one algorithm compresses better and the other algorithm uses >> less CPU time? > > Then we make a choice for our users. A configuration option about an > aspect of postgres that darned view people will understand with for the > marginal differences between snappy and lz4 doesn't make sense.
Maybe. Let's get the basic patch done first; then we can argue about that. -- 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
