Re: libpq compression (part 3)

On Fri, 17 May 2024 at 23:40, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> To be clear, I am not arguing that it should be the receiver's choice.
> I'm arguing it should be the client's choice, which means the client
> decides what it sends and also tells the server what to send to it.
> I'm open to counter-arguments, but as I've thought about this more,
> I've come to the conclusion that letting the client control the
> behavior is the most likely to be useful and the most consistent with
> existing facilities. I think we're on the same page based on the rest
> of your email: I'm just clarifying.

+1

> I have some quibbles with the syntax but I agree with the concept.
> What I'd probably do is separate the server side thing into two GUCs,
> each with a list of algorithms, comma-separated, like we do for other
> lists in postgresql.conf. Maybe make the default 'all' meaning
> "everything this build of the server supports". On the client side,
> I'd allow both things to be specified using a single option, because
> wanting to do the same thing in both directions will be common, and
> you actually have to type in connection strings sometimes, so
> verbosity matters more.
>
> As far as the format of the value for that keyword, what do you think
> about either compression=DO_THIS_BOTH_WAYS or
> compression=DO_THIS_WHEN_SENDING/DO_THIS_WHEN_RECEIVING, with each "do
> this" being a specification of the same form already accepted for
> server-side compression e.g. gzip or gzip:level=9? If you don't like
> that, why do you think the proposal you made above is better, and why
> is that one now punctuated with slashes instead of semicolons?

+1