| From: | Aleksander Alekseev <a(dot)alekseev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Shulgin, Oleksandr" <oleksandr(dot)shulgin(at)zalando(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Shay Rojansky <roji(at)roji(dot)org>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Wire protocol compression |
| Date: | 2016-04-21 13:04:07 |
| Message-ID: | 20160421160407.0a476a8a@fujitsu |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> I guess since the usual answer for compression was "use what SSL
> provides you for free", it's rather unlikely that someone bothered to
> make a proxy just for that purpose, and really, a proxy is just
> another moving part in your setup: not everyone will be thrilled to
> add that.
It just doesn't sound like a feature that should be implemented
separately for every single application that uses TCP. Granted TCP proxy
is not the most convenient way to solve a task. Maybe it could be
implemented in OpenVPN or on Linux TCP/IP stack level.
--
Best regards,
Aleksander Alekseev
http://eax.me/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Shulgin, Oleksandr | 2016-04-21 13:10:58 | Re: Wire protocol compression |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2016-04-21 12:44:54 | Re: Optimization for updating foreign tables in Postgres FDW |