Re: PostgreSQL web site

From: "Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>
To: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Naz Gassiep" <naz(at)mira(dot)net>
Cc: <pgsql-www(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL web site
Date: 2006-08-28 18:29:18
Message-ID: 6BCB9D8A16AC4241919521715F4D8BCEA0FB7D@algol.sollentuna.se
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-www

> > Just a suggestion, why don't the web admins turn mod_gzip on? There
> > are no downsides, and it would likely make a fairly large impact on
> > bandwidth bills. Think of all the people browsing the PG
> documentation
> > (myself included). Not only would bandwidth bills go down,
> > responsiveness on the docs would be higher as well.
> >
> > Even if there is no bandwidth saving (if your b/w is free for
> > instance), I'm of the opinion that mod_gzip and mod_deflate
> should be
> > used unless there is a compelling reason not to.
> >
> > Sorry if this has been discussed before, but I thought it was worth
> > mentioning on the off chance it hadn't.
>
> Actually that is a very good question... why are we not using
> mod_deflate?

Good question. It's definitly worth investigating. It does add load to
the server, but not all that much. And if we have the space (need to
check that on some of the boxen) we could set up pre-compressed static
images and that argument would go away..

//Magnus

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-www by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2006-08-28 18:40:39 Re: PostgreSQL web site
Previous Message Joshua D. Drake 2006-08-28 18:25:19 Re: PostgreSQL web site