| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_basebackup compression TODO item |
| Date: | 2016-03-03 17:34:43 |
| Message-ID: | 20160303173443.5kysybhnx5no6xmk@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2016-03-03 18:31:03 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> I think we want it at protocol level rather than pg_basebackup level.
I think we may want both eventually, but I do agree that protocol level
has a lot higher "priority" than that. Something like protocol level
compression has a bit of different tradeofs than compressing base
backups, and it's nice not to compress, uncompress, compress again.
> If SSL compression is busted on base backups, it's equally busted on
> regular connection and replication streams. People do ask for
> compression on that (in particular I've had a lot of requests when it
> comes to replication), and our response there has traditionally been
> "ssl compression"...
Agreed. I think our answer there was always a bit of a cop out...
Andres
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2016-03-03 17:36:19 | Re: pg_basebackup compression TODO item |
| Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2016-03-03 17:31:03 | Re: pg_basebackup compression TODO item |