Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> I mean, we don't necessarily need to make it configurable if we just add
> one canonical new "better" compression format. I am not sure that's
> sufficient since I can see usecases for 'very fast but not too well
> compressed' and 'very well compressed but slow', but I am personally not
> really interested in the second case, so ...
IME, once we've changed it once, the odds that we'll want to change it
again go up drastically. I think if we're going to make a change here
we should leave room for future revisions.
regards, tom lane
