On Feb 7, 2009, at 4:53 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote:
Robert Haas wrote:
That this comes up "much to often" suggests that there is more
than near
zero interest. Why can only one compression library can be
considered?
We use multiple readline implementations, for better or worse.
I think the context here is for pg_dump only and in that context a
faster
compression library makes a lot of sense. I'd be happy to prepare
a patch
if the license issue can be accomodated. Hence my question, what
sort of
licence accomodation would we need to be able to use this library?
Based on previous discussions, I suspect that the answer here is
"complete relicensing as BSD". I think pursuing any sort of
licensing
exception is completely futile as there will still be restrictions
that will be unacceptable to many in the community.
But if someone had an actual BSD-LICENSED compression library that
was
better than what we have now, I'm not sure why Bruce (or anyone)
should be opposed to incorporating it. It's just that all of the
proposals that come up for this sort of thing aren't that.
You can be I would oppose it. It is not efficient for us to support
every compression-of-the-month project that comes along. If something
was BSD, well tested, and clearly superior, we might consider it,
but I
Well that's pretty much what I said.
have seen nothing like that for 10 years and I doubt I will see
something the next 5. I am thinking
I am doubtful too.
we need to add this to the
"Features we do not want" section of our todo list.
"Proprietary compression algorithms, even with Postgresql-specific
license exceptions"?
...Robert
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
