On 02.12.2010 04:35, Joachim Wieland wrote:
> There is one thing however that I am not in favor of, which is the
> removal of the "sizeHint" parameter for the read functions. The reason
> for this parameter is not very clear now without LZF but I have tried
> to put in a few comments to explain the situation (which you have
> taken out as well :-) ).
>
> The point is that zlib is a stream based compression algorithm, you
> just stuff data in and from time to time you get data out and in the
> end you explicitly flush the compressor. The read function can just
> return as many bytes as it wants and we can just hand it all over to
> zlib. Other compression algorithms however are block based and first
> write a block header that contains the information on the next data
> block, including uncompressed and compressed sizes. Now with the
> sizeHint parameter I used, the compressor could tell the read function
> that it just wants to read the fixed size header (6 bytes IIRC). In
> the header it would look up the compressed size for the next block and
> would then ask the read function to get exactly this amount of data,
> decompress it and go on with the next block, and so forth...
>
> Of course you can possibly do that memory management inside the
> compressor with an extra buffer holding what you got in excess but
> it's a pain. If you removed that part on purpose on the grounds that
> there is no block based compression algorithm in core and probably
> never will be, then that's okay :-)
Yeah, we're not going to have lzf built-in anytime soon. The external
command approach seems like the best way to support additional
compression algorithms, and I don't think it could do anything with
sizeHint. And the custom format didn't obey sizeHint anyway, because it
reads one custom-format block at a time.
-- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com