| From: | Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-Dev <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] COPY .. COMPRESSED |
| Date: | 2013-01-15 14:55:31 |
| Message-ID: | CAGTBQpancfx2bAJdF0iUD6BMuNnyvdHWXjNgmOZ+WrfFyM+iiw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 11:33 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
> Now, protocol-level on-the-wire compression
> is another option, but there's quite a few drawbacks to that and quite a
> bit of work involved. Having support for COPY-based compression could
> be an answer for many cases where on-the-wire compression is desirable.
Like?
Postgres' packetized protocol lends itself quite well for this kind of
thing. It could even be done on a packet-by-packet basis. The only
drawback I see, is that it pretty much rules out piping through
arbitrary commands (a protocol needs to be very clearly defined).
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2013-01-15 14:56:08 | Re: recent ALTER whatever .. SET SCHEMA refactoring |
| Previous Message | Kohei KaiGai | 2013-01-15 14:48:47 | Re: recent ALTER whatever .. SET SCHEMA refactoring |