On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 06:19:09PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 4:50 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > I find the argument that this supports compression-over-the-wire to be > > quite weak, because COPY is only one form of bulk data transfer, and > > one that a lot of applications don't ever use. If we think we need to > > support transmission compression for ourselves, it ought to be > > integrated at the wire protocol level, not in COPY. > > > > Just to not look like I'm rejecting stuff without proposing > > alternatives, here is an idea about a backwards-compatible design for > > doing that: we could add an option that can be set in the connection > > request packet. Say, "transmission_compression = gzip". > > But presumably this would transparently compress at one end and > decompress at the other end, which is again a somewhat different use > case. To get compressed output on the client side, you have to > decompress and recompress. Maybe that's OK, but it's not quite the > same thing.
Is there a TODO here? -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
