Re: libpq compression (part 3) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: libpq compression (part 3)
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoZy43rBVypyHujU-ZZuprv4Uh3zYCLO4Yzh2EjeR3A2AA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: libpq compression (part 3)  (Jacob Burroughs <jburroughs@instructure.com>)
Responses Re: libpq compression (part 3)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 4:02 PM Jacob Burroughs
<jburroughs@instructure.com> wrote:
> > I wonder if we could use "upstream" and "downstream" to be clearer? Or
> > some other terminology?
>
> What about `send` and `receive`?

I think that would definitely be better than "compress" and
"decompress," but I was worried that it might be unclear to the user
whether the parameter that they specified was from the point of view
of the client or the server. Perhaps that's a dumb thing to worry
about, though.

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Melanie Plageman
Date:
Subject: Re: Emit fewer vacuum records by reaping removable tuples during pruning
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: plpgsql memory leaks