Re: libpq compression (part 3)

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Robert Haas
Тема Re: libpq compression (part 3)
Дата
Msg-id CA+TgmoZy43rBVypyHujU-ZZuprv4Uh3zYCLO4Yzh2EjeR3A2AA@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: libpq compression (part 3)  (Jacob Burroughs <jburroughs@instructure.com>)
Ответы Re: libpq compression (part 3)  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 4:02 PM Jacob Burroughs
<jburroughs@instructure.com> wrote:
> > I wonder if we could use "upstream" and "downstream" to be clearer? Or
> > some other terminology?
>
> What about `send` and `receive`?

I think that would definitely be better than "compress" and
"decompress," but I was worried that it might be unclear to the user
whether the parameter that they specified was from the point of view
of the client or the server. Perhaps that's a dumb thing to worry
about, though.

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Melanie Plageman
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Emit fewer vacuum records by reaping removable tuples during pruning
Следующее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: plpgsql memory leaks