Marko Kreen <mark...@gmail.com> writes: > On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 6:39 AM, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> wrote: >> Fair enough if we decide that - but we should make that decision >> knowing that we're leaving the JDBC and .Net people in a bad position >> where they are not likely to be able to implement his. >> >> The JDBC people have a theoretical chance if the JDK is open. The .Net >> people are stuck with schannel that doesn't support it at this point. >> It might well do in the future (since it's in the standard); but >> they're at the mercy of Microsoft.
> Both Java and C# are open-source enough that anybody can > take existing SSL implementation and add compression to it, > then distribute it as improved SSL library. Possibly more to the point: that is work they might have to do, if nobody else steps up to the plate --- and if they do end up doing it, it could benefit other projects too. On the other hand, if we roll-our-own transport compression solution, that is work they *will* have to do, with no chance of sharing the effort with other projects. BTW, as far as the .Net case goes, it took only a moment's googling to find this: http://openssl-net.sourceforge.net/ which is a .Net wrapper around real OpenSSL. It doesn't appear to provide wrappers for the compression selection functions, but surely that's just a lack of round tuits, not that it would take more than five minutes to add them. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers