| From: | Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Euler Taveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Claes Jakobsson <claes(at)versed(dot)se> |
| Subject: | Re: libpq compression |
| Date: | 2012-06-20 20:40:01 |
| Message-ID: | CACMqXCLkOpYnK1eLTb_bAqx344C9j=rchTeNXSW=E6+hdXwyPA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 10:05 PM, Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> wrote:
> I'm starting to think that relying on SSL/TLS for compression of
> unencrypted connections might not be such a good idea after all. We'd
> be using the protocol in a way it quite clearly never was intended to
> be used...
Maybe, but what is the argument that we should avoid
on encryption+compression at the same time?
AES is quite lightweight compared to compression, so should
be no problem in situations where you care about compression.
RSA is noticeable, but only for short connections.
Thus easily solvable with connection pooling.
And for really special compression needs you can always
create a UDF that does custom compression for you.
So what exactly is the situation we need to solve
with postgres-specific protocol compression?
--
marko
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2012-06-20 20:40:56 | Re: CREATE FOREGIN TABLE LACUNA |
| Previous Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2012-06-20 20:36:23 | Re: Event Triggers reduced, v1 |