Re: [HACKERS] gzip vs bzip2 in packing - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Taral
Subject Re: [HACKERS] gzip vs bzip2 in packing
Date
Msg-id 99012100060700.11895@taral.dobiecenter.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] gzip vs bzip2 in packing  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, 20 Jan 1999, you wrote:
>Eventually something will come along that's enough better than gzip
>to warrant a universal upgrade cycle, but as far as I can see bzip2
>ain't it.  In any case I see no need for Postgres to be out front of
>the curve on this question...

Err, I was actually recommending we do like many sites, and put up gzip and
bzip2 versions of the tarball. Those with bzip2 can download the (smaller)
bzip2 version, and save network bandwidth (and time, for those with modems).

Taral


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] gzip vs bzip2 in packing
Next
From: "Thomas G. Lockhart"
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: Beta test of Postgresql 6.5