Re: Faster compression, again

Daniel Farina <daniel@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