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