Re: libpq compression

From: Ryan Kelly <rpkelly22(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Euler Taveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: libpq compression
Date: 2012-06-15 15:58:55
Message-ID: 20120615155855.GD319@llserver.lakeliving.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 11:28:48PM +0800, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 11:24 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
> <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> > On 15.06.2012 17:58, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 10:56 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
> >> <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 15.06.2012 17:39, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 6:48 PM, Florian Pflug<fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>    wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The way I see it, if we use SSL-based compression then non-libpq
> >>>>> clients
> >>>>>
> >>>>> there's at least a chance of those clients being able to use it easily
> >>>>> (if their SSL implementation supports it). If we go with a third-party
> >>>>> compression method, they *all* need to add yet another dependency, or
> >>>>> may
> >>>>> even need to re-implement the compression method in their
> >>>>> implementation
> >>>>> language of choice.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I only partially agree. If there *is* no third party SSL libary that
> >>>> does support it, then they're stuck reimplementing an *entire SSL
> >>>> library*, which is surely many orders of magnitude more work, and
> >>>> suddenly steps into writing encryption code which is a lot more
> >>>> sensitive.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> You could write a dummy SSL implementation that only does compression,
> >>> not
> >>> encryption. Ie. only support the 'null' encryption method. That should be
> >>> about the same amount of work as writing an implementation of compression
> >>> using whatever protocol we would decide to use for negotiating the
> >>> compression.
> >>
> >>
> >> Sure, but then what do you do if you actually want both?
> >
> >
> > Umm, then you use a real SSL libray, not the dummy one?
>
> But (in this scenario, and so far nobody has proven it to be wrong)
> there exists no real SSL library that does support compression.
gnutls and openssl both support compression:

http://www.gnu.org/software/gnutls/manual/html_node/Compression-algorithms-used-in-the-record-layer.html
http://www.openssl.org/docs/apps/enc.html

-Ryan Kelly

>
> --
>  Magnus Hagander
>  Me: http://www.hagander.net/
>  Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Heikki Linnakangas 2012-06-15 16:03:08 Re: libpq compression
Previous Message Tom Lane 2012-06-15 15:57:59 Re: libpq compression