| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Daniil Zakhlystov <usernamedt(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>, Konstantin Knizhnik <k(dot)knizhnik(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Denis Smirnov <sd(at)arenadata(dot)io>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: libpq compression |
| Date: | 2020-12-22 19:03:05 |
| Message-ID: | 626075.1608663785@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> I don't see aby benchmark results in this thread, allowing me to make
> that conclusion, and I find it hard to believe that 200MB/client is a
> sensible trade-off.
> It assumes you have that much memory, and it may allow easy DoS attack
> (although maybe it's not worse than e.g. generating a lot of I/O or
> running expensive function). Maybe allowing limiting the compression
> level / decompression buffer size in postgresql.conf would be enough. Or
> maybe allow disabling such compression algorithms altogether.
The link Ken pointed at suggests that restricting the window size to
8MB is a common compromise. It's not clear to me what that does to
the achievable compression ratio. Even 8MB could be an annoying cost
if it's being paid per-process, on both the server and client sides.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2020-12-22 19:14:14 | Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Generic type subscripting |
| Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2020-12-22 18:53:17 | Re: libpq compression |