Re: libpq compression

Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 6:39 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
>> Fair enough if we decide that - but we should make that decision
>> knowing that we're leaving the JDBC and .Net people in a bad position
>> where they are not likely to be able to implement his.
>>
>> The JDBC people have a theoretical chance if the JDK is open. The .Net
>> people are stuck with schannel that doesn't support it at this point.
>> It might well do in the future (since it's in the standard); but
>> they're at the mercy of Microsoft.

> Both Java and C# are open-source enough that anybody can
> take existing SSL implementation and add compression to it,
> then distribute it as improved SSL library.

Possibly more to the point: that is work they might have to do, if
nobody else steps up to the plate --- and if they do end up doing it,
it could benefit other projects too. On the other hand, if we
roll-our-own transport compression solution, that is work they *will*
have to do, with no chance of sharing the effort with other projects.

BTW, as far as the .Net case goes, it took only a moment's googling
to find this:
http://openssl-net.sourceforge.net/
which is a .Net wrapper around real OpenSSL. It doesn't appear to
provide wrappers for the compression selection functions, but surely
that's just a lack of round tuits, not that it would take more than
five minutes to add them.

regards, tom lane