| 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 18:00:16 |
| Message-ID: | 20160303180016.bhqv6wlstvndrsuc@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2016-03-03 18:44:24 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 6:34 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>
> > 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.
> Yeah, good point, we definitely want both. Based on the field experience
> I've had (which might differ from others), having it protocol level would
> help more people tough, so should be higher prio.
Agreed. But then our priorities are not necessary the implementers, and
I don't think there's strong enough architectural reasons to only accept
protocol level for now...
Andres
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-03-03 18:17:20 | Re: WIP: Upper planner pathification |
| Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2016-03-03 17:56:41 | Re: pg_basebackup compression TODO item |