On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 1:03 AM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
> > Then, if people are willing to adopt the syntax that the
> > backup_compression.c/h stuff supports as a project standard (+1 from
> > me) we can go the other way and rename that stuff to be more generic,
> > taking backup out of the name.
>
> I am not sure about the specification part which is only used by base
> backups that has no client-server requirements, so option values would
> still require their own grammar.
I don't know what you mean by this. I think the specification stuff
could be reused in a lot of places. If you can ask for a base backup
with zstd:level=3,long=1,fancystuff=yes or whatever we end up with,
why not enable exactly the same for every other place that uses
compression? I don't know what "client-server requirements" is or what
that has to do with this.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
