* Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote: > On 2016-03-03 18:31:03 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > I think we want it at protocol level rather than pg_basebackup level. > > I think we may want both eventually, but I do agree that protocol level > has a lot higher "priority" than that. Something like protocol level > compression has a bit of different tradeofs than compressing base > backups, and it's nice not to compress, uncompress, compress again.
+1, the whole compress-uncompress-compress thing was why I was trying to add support to COPY to do zlib compression, which could have then been used to compress server-side and then just write the results out to a file for -Fc/-Fd style dumps. We ended up implementing the 'PROGRAM' thing for COPY, which is nice, but isn't the same. > > If SSL compression is busted on base backups, it's equally busted on > > regular connection and replication streams. People do ask for > > compression on that (in particular I've had a lot of requests when it > > comes to replication), and our response there has traditionally been > > "ssl compression"... > > Agreed. I think our answer there was always a bit of a cop out... Agreed on this also. Thanks! Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
