On Feb 7, 2009, at 4:53 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>>> That this comes up "much to often" suggests that there is more
>>> than near
>>> zero interest. Why can only one compression library can be
>>> considered?
>>> We use multiple readline implementations, for better or worse.
>>>
>>> I think the context here is for pg_dump only and in that context a
>>> faster
>>> compression library makes a lot of sense. I'd be happy to prepare
>>> a patch
>>> if the license issue can be accomodated. Hence my question, what
>>> sort of
>>> licence accomodation would we need to be able to use this library?
>>
>> Based on previous discussions, I suspect that the answer here is
>> "complete relicensing as BSD". I think pursuing any sort of
>> licensing
>> exception is completely futile as there will still be restrictions
>> that will be unacceptable to many in the community.
>>
>> But if someone had an actual BSD-LICENSED compression library that
>> was
>> better than what we have now, I'm not sure why Bruce (or anyone)
>> should be opposed to incorporating it. It's just that all of the
>> proposals that come up for this sort of thing aren't that.
>
> You can be I would oppose it. It is not efficient for us to support
> every compression-of-the-month project that comes along. If something
> was BSD, well tested, and clearly superior, we might consider it,
> but I
Well that's pretty much what I said.
> have seen nothing like that for 10 years and I doubt I will see
> something the next 5. I am thinking
I am doubtful too.
> we need to add this to the
> "Features we do not want" section of our todo list.
"Proprietary compression algorithms, even with Postgresql-specific
license exceptions"?
...Robert
