On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 10:43 AM, Tomas Vondra
<tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> I personally am not quite convinced about that, for the reason I tried
> to explain in my previous messages. I see it as a poor alternative to
> compression built into the data type. I do like the idea of compression
> with external dictionary, however.
I think that compression built into the datatype and what is proposed
here are both useful and everybody's free to work on either one as the
prefer, so I don't see that as a reason not to accept this patch. And
I think this patch can be a stepping stone toward compression with an
external dictionary, so that seems like an affirmative reason to
accept this patch.
> But don't forget that it's not me in this thread - it's my evil twin,
> moonlighting as Mr. Devil's lawyer ;-)
Well, I don't mind you objecting to the patch under any persona, but
so far I'm not finding your reasons convincing...
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
