* Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote:
> 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.

+1, the whole compress-uncompress-compress thing was why I was trying to
add support to COPY to do zlib compression, which could have then been
used to compress server-side and then just write the results out to a
file for -Fc/-Fd style dumps.  We ended up implementing the 'PROGRAM'
thing for COPY, which is nice, but isn't the same.

> > 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...

Agreed on this also.



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply via email to