On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 06:40:03PM +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> On 3/28/23 18:07, gkokolatos@pm.me wrote:
> > ------- Original Message -------
> > On Friday, March 24th, 2023 at 10:30 AM, gkokolatos@pm.me <gkokolatos@pm.me> wrote:
> >
> >> ------- Original Message -------
> >> On Thursday, March 23rd, 2023 at 6:10 PM, Tomas Vondra tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com wrote:
> >>
> >>> This leaves the empty-data issue (which we have a fix for) and the
> >>> switch to LZ4F. And then the zstd part.
> >>
> >> Please expect promptly a patch for the switch to frames.
> >
> > Please find the expected patch attached. Note that the bulk of the
> > patch is code unification, variable renaming to something more
> > appropriate, and comment addition. These are changes that are not
> > strictly necessary to switch to LZ4F. I do believe that are
> > essential for code hygiene after the switch and they do belong
> > on the same commit.
>
> Thanks!
>
> I agree the renames & cleanup are appropriate - it'd be silly to stick
> to misleading naming etc. Would it make sense to split the patch into
> two, to separate the renames and the switch to lz4f?
> That'd make it the changes necessary for lz4f switch clearer.
I don't think so. Did you mean separate commits only for review ?
The patch is pretty readable - the File API has just some renames, and
the compressor API is what's being replaced, which isn't going to be any
more clear.
@Georgeos: did you consider using a C union in LZ4State, to separate the
parts used by the different APIs ?
--
Justin
