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


From: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
To: Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com>
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>
Date: 2013-01-15 17:31:17
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
* 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 LinnakangasDate: 2013-01-15 18:10:05
Subject: Re: unlogged tables vs. GIST
Previous:From: Sergey KoposovDate: 2013-01-15 17:27:50
Subject: Re: Curious buildfarm failures (fwd)

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group