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
have seen nothing like that for 10 years and I doubt I will see
something the next 5. I am thinking we need to add this to the
"Features we do not want" section of our todo list.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
