Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2023 11:18:24 -0600
From: Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>
To: Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: gkokolatos@pm.me, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>,
	shiy.fnst@fujitsu.com, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org,
	Rachel Heaton <rachelmheaton@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Add LZ4 compression in pg_dump
Message-ID: <20230302171824.GE4268@telsasoft.com>
References: <535565cd-b69f-c064-a845-15c0fc44db4a@enterprisedb.com>
 <mYBKRYonRy5OiDDYxcxOOJ5xM9iLnuDsGP92zC7mjw8ew1wiccYZIpTvQEmtgRoAXRhaj91SAKwtFluUtRDZ3r6pRdGYLncWK7rXIQrHhFY=@pm.me>
 <22cb80ed-ec87-54c7-fd5b-cdcf79766bb1@enterprisedb.com>
 <8421f53d-c9f7-c02e-3278-9f9522a8e8f3@enterprisedb.com>
 <20230224015115.GS1653@telsasoft.com>
 <Y/g+gi/zQozPfmly@paquier.xyz>
 <ikuHRdKZjpeTCe1_5_z3wajRHSjmS0A7A9yrsQQKcqJdEjYYzXsCK-ZBNtC-x-0P5CYEMG6hLaggIxcLA1scy05qgTquWYOYNcqYzcOz13g=@pm.me>
 <20230225050214.GH1653@telsasoft.com>
 <20230225140553.GI1653@telsasoft.com>
 <c75cf5ba-6cf8-a7eb-c9eb-87f7a56493c0@enterprisedb.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <c75cf5ba-6cf8-a7eb-c9eb-87f7a56493c0@enterprisedb.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20230302171824.GE4268%40telsasoft.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Mar 01, 2023 at 05:20:05PM +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> On 2/25/23 15:05, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 24, 2023 at 11:02:14PM -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> >> I have some fixes (attached) and questions while polishing the patch for
> >> zstd compression.  The fixes are small and could be integrated with the
> >> patch for zstd, but could be applied independently.
> > 
> > One more - WriteDataToArchiveGzip() says:
> > 
> > +       if (cs->compression_spec.level == 0)
> > +           pg_fatal("requested to compress the archive yet no level was specified");
> > 
> > That was added at e9960732a.  
> > 
> > But if you specify gzip:0, the compression level is already enforced by
> > validate_compress_specification(), before hitting gzip.c:
> > 
> > | pg_dump: error: invalid compression specification: compression algorithm "gzip" expects a compression level between 1 and 9 (default at -1)
> > 
> > 5e73a6048 intended that to work as before, and you *can* specify -Z0:
> > 
> >     The change is backward-compatible, hence specifying only an integer
> >     leads to no compression for a level of 0 and gzip compression when the
> >     level is greater than 0.
> > 
> >     $ time ./src/bin/pg_dump/pg_dump -h /tmp regression -t int8_tbl -Fp --compress 0 |file -
> >     /dev/stdin: ASCII text
> 
> FWIW I agree we should make this backwards-compatible - accept "0" and
> treat it as no compression.
> 
> Georgios, can you prepare a patch doing that?

I think maybe Tomas misunderstood.  What I was trying to say is that -Z
0 *is* accepted to mean no compression.  This part wasn't quoted, but I
said:

> Right now, I think that pg_fatal in gzip.c is dead code - that was first
> added in the patch version sent on 21 Dec 2022.

If you run the diff command that I've been talking about, you'll see
that InitCompressorZlib was almost unchanged - e9960732 is essentially a
refactoring.  I don't think it's desirable to add a pg_fatal() in a
function that's otherwise nearly-unchanged.  The fact that it's
nearly-unchanged is a good thing: it simplifies reading of what changed.
If someone wants to add a pg_fatal() in that code path, it'd be better
done in its own commit, with a separate message explaining the change.

If you insist on changing anything here, you might add an assertion (as
you said earlier) along with a comment like
/* -Z 0 uses the "None" compressor rather than zlib with no compression */

-- 
Justin