* Claudio Freire (klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 1:08 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
> > Where it does work well is when you move into a bulk-data mode (ala
> > COPY) and can compress relatively large amounts of data into a smaller
> > number of full-size packets to be sent.
> Well... exactly. COPY is one case, big result sets is another.
> And packet headers can include whether each packet is compressed or
> not, which is quite transparent and easy to handle. There could even
> be a negotiation phase and make it backwards-compatible.
COPY and a large result set are the only cases, and a large result set
could easily be put inside of a COPY statement. I agree that large
result sets outside of COPY could benefit from compression and perhaps
we can formulate a way to support that also.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Heikki Linnakangas||Date: 2013-01-15 18:10:05|
|Subject: Re: unlogged tables vs. GIST|
|Previous:||From: Sergey Koposov||Date: 2013-01-15 17:27:50|
|Subject: Re: Curious buildfarm failures (fwd)|