On 2016-03-03 18:31:03 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: > I think we want it at protocol level rather than pg_basebackup level.
I think we may want both eventually, but I do agree that protocol level has a lot higher "priority" than that. Something like protocol level compression has a bit of different tradeofs than compressing base backups, and it's nice not to compress, uncompress, compress again. > If SSL compression is busted on base backups, it's equally busted on > regular connection and replication streams. People do ask for > compression on that (in particular I've had a lot of requests when it > comes to replication), and our response there has traditionally been > "ssl compression"... Agreed. I think our answer there was always a bit of a cop out... Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers