Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup compression TODO item

2016-03-07 Thread Benedikt Grundmann
On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 7:36 PM, Euler Taveira wrote: > On 03-03-2016 14:44, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 6:34 PM, Andres Freund > > wrote: > > > > On 2016-03-03 18:31:03 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup compression TODO item

2016-03-06 Thread Euler Taveira
On 03-03-2016 14:44, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 6:34 PM, Andres Freund > 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. > >

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup compression TODO item

2016-03-03 Thread Andres Freund
On 2016-03-03 18:44:24 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 6:34 PM, Andres Freund 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

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup compression TODO item

2016-03-03 Thread Joshua D. Drake
On 03/03/2016 09:34 AM, Andres Freund 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

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup compression TODO item

2016-03-03 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 6:34 PM, Andres Freund 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

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup compression TODO item

2016-03-03 Thread Stephen Frost
* 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.

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup compression TODO item

2016-03-03 Thread Joshua D. Drake
On 03/03/2016 09:23 AM, Jeff Janes wrote: Since SSL compression seems to be a busted flush, I would like to see pg_basebackup be able to do compression on the server end, not just the client end, in order to spare network bandwidth. Any comments on how hard this would be, or why we don't want

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup compression TODO item

2016-03-03 Thread Andres Freund
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

Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup compression TODO item

2016-03-03 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 6:23 PM, Jeff Janes wrote: > Since SSL compression seems to be a busted flush, I would like to see > pg_basebackup be able to do compression on the server end, not just > the client end, in order to spare network bandwidth. > > Any comments on how

[HACKERS] pg_basebackup compression TODO item

2016-03-03 Thread Jeff Janes
Since SSL compression seems to be a busted flush, I would like to see pg_basebackup be able to do compression on the server end, not just the client end, in order to spare network bandwidth. Any comments on how hard this would be, or why we don't want it? Cheers, Jeff -- Sent via