On 2016-03-03 18:44:24 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 6:34 PM, 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.
> Yeah, good point, we definitely want both. Based on the field experience > I've had (which might differ from others), having it protocol level would > help more people tough, so should be higher prio. Agreed. But then our priorities are not necessary the implementers, and I don't think there's strong enough architectural reasons to only accept protocol level for now... Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
