Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [PATCH] COPY .. COMPRESSED

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] COPY .. COMPRESSED
Date: 2013-01-16 23:19:09
Message-ID: CA+TgmoZEWaTAoXm8STcFP6rEa3rNBQFaLL=h8cWzSut+CDyr7w@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 4:50 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)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.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company


In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2013-01-16 23:25:49
Subject: Re: [PATCH] COPY .. COMPRESSED
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2013-01-16 23:14:41
Subject: Re: Event Triggers: adding information

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group