Re: libpq compression - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Konstantin Knizhnik
Subject Re: libpq compression
Date
Msg-id [email protected]
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: libpq compression  (Dmitry Dolgov <[email protected]>)
List pgsql-hackers

On 13.02.2019 17:54, Dmitry Dolgov wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 3:52 PM Dmitry Dolgov <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 3:46 PM Konstantin Knizhnik
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Moreover, please notice that your implementation is still passing functions
>>> tx/rx functions to stream constructor and so zpq_read is still able to read
>>> data itself. So I do not understand which problem you have solved by
>>> replacing zpq_read with pair of zpq_read_drain+zpq_read.
>> Nope, I've removed the call of these functions from zlib_read/write, just
>> forgot to remove the initialization part.
> Oh, I see the source of confusion. Due to lack of time I've implemented my
> changes only for zlib part, sorry that I didn't mention that before.
And I have looked at zstd part;)
Ok, but still I think that it is better to pass tx/rx function to stream.
There are two important advantages:
1. It eliminates code duplication.
2. It allows to use (in future) this streaming compression not only for 
libpq for for other streaming data.
And I do not see any disadvantages.

Concerning "layering violation" may be it is better to introduce some 
other functions something like inflate_read, deflate_write and call them 
instead of *secure_read.
But from my point of view it will not improve readability and modularity 
of code.

-- 
Konstantin Knizhnik
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: WAL insert delay settings
Next
From: Stephen Frost
Date:
Subject: Re: WAL insert delay settings