Feedback-ID: i0fe9450f:Fastmail
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2022 09:50:34 +0900
From: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
To: gkokolatos@pm.me
Cc: Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>,
	pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org,
	Rachel Heaton <rachelmheaton@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Add LZ4 compression in pg_dump
Message-ID: <Y4ao2viUjcO/c2Oc@paquier.xyz>
References: 
 <165970942594.29780.15623018354659505573.pgcf@coridan.postgresql.org>
 <-pU80vtiyXMfSSpn4SWOR97t71MVmDOyHaJtvGsdEfroFsFUDdc-UaqD-8LMPMw2sy-7B2_IVnlrATfVvXwtv8n3kexLePZ7iWgiOnE4jRI=@pm.me>
 <20221120172611.GQ11463@telsasoft.com>
 <Y3q0jEb6QUnvfw0d@paquier.xyz>
 <dWoK9v8RxFX0rEqRXwHPIAZ1JqOjgUJKJEQYKgXo180_Q1YJBN5GDUMYJyfYv_C8Vgs23ddTW0I2htMj2CFBPM1Rd-DFgyXXsNE5kwmyk3Q=@pm.me>
 <Y3ypKVCOo1VYP9nz@paquier.xyz>
 <O4mutIrCES8ZhlXJiMvzsivT7ztAMja2lkdL1LJx6O5f22I2W8PBIeLKz7mDLwxHoibcnRAYJXm1pH4tyUNC4a8eDzLn22a6Pb1S74Niexg=@pm.me>
 <Y4WkZUGkic9jWb5I@paquier.xyz>
 <iKYD3Ryqsn88_UgYBiw3V803ISB5BJokmR2zsFtcedNVVeivIn_fqVv-oRRMqOpMiBFXsi72UYNMmuqMnEjjcQluTTpO-oxQWAVPeAlACnA=@pm.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="EqzhHz63madOKGUr"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: 
 <iKYD3Ryqsn88_UgYBiw3V803ISB5BJokmR2zsFtcedNVVeivIn_fqVv-oRRMqOpMiBFXsi72UYNMmuqMnEjjcQluTTpO-oxQWAVPeAlACnA=@pm.me>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/Y4ao2viUjcO/c2Oc%40paquier.xyz>
Precedence: bulk


--EqzhHz63madOKGUr
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 12:10:46PM +0000, gkokolatos@pm.me wrote:
> Thank you. Please advice if is preferable to split 0002 in two parts.
> I think not but I will happily do so if you think otherwise.

This one makes me curious.  What kind of split are you talking about?
If it makes the code review and the git history cleaner and easier, I
am usually a lot in favor of such incremental changes.  As far as I
can see, there is the switch from the compression integer to
compression specification as one thing.  The second thing is the
refactoring of cfclose() and these routines, paving the way for 0003.
Hmm, it may be cleaner to move the switch to the compression spec in
one patch, and move the logic around cfclose() to its own, paving the
way to 0003.

By the way, I think that this 0002 should drop all the default clauses
in the switches for the compression method so as we'd catch any
missing code paths with compiler warnings if a new compression method
is added in the future.

Anyway, I have applied 0001, adding you as a primary author because
you did most of it with only tweaks from me for pg_basebackup.  The
docs of pg_basebackup have been amended to mention the slight change
in grammar, affecting the case where we do not have a detail string.
--
Michael

--EqzhHz63madOKGUr
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=GGD2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--EqzhHz63madOKGUr--