On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 9:27 AM Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
> I mean that I think it would be confusing to have
> --client-compression=x, --server-compression=y, and
> compression-level=z as the options. Why, in that scenario, does the
> "compression" part get two parameters, but the "compression level"
> part get one. In that case, there should either be --compression=x and
> --compression-level=z (which is what I'd suggest, per above), or there
> should be --client-compression, --server-compression,
> --client-compression-level and --server-compression-level, for it to
> be consistent. But having one of them be split in two parameters and
> the other one not, is what I'd consider confusing.
I don't find that confusing, but confusion is a pretty subjective
experience so that doesn't really prove anything. Of the two
alternatives that you propose, I prefer --compress=["server-"]METHOD
and --compression-level=NUMBER to having both
--client-compression-level and --server-compression-level. To me,
that's still a bit more surprising than my proposal, because having
the client compress stuff and having the server compress stuff feel
like somewhat different kinds of things ... but it's unsurprising that
I like my own proposal, and what really matters is that we converge
relatively quickly on something we can all live with.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com