On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 8:19 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> 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.

Well, libpq could give some access to raw compressed streams, but,
really, even with double compression on the client, it solves the
bandwidth issue, not only for pg_dump, pg_restore, and copy, but also
for all other transfer-intensive applications. I do think it's the
best option.

In response to

• Re: [PATCH] COPY .. COMPRESSED at 2013-01-16 23:19:09 from Robert Haas

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Claudio Freire	Date: 2013-01-17 02:56:21
	Subject: Re: Parallel query execution
Previous:	From: Bruce Momjian	Date: 2013-01-17 02:44:53
	Subject: Re: Parallel query execution