Re: Client/Server compression?

Greg Copeland <greg(at)copelandconsulting(dot)net> writes:
> Except we seemingly don't see eye to eye on it. SSH just is not very
> useful in many situations simply because it may not always be
> available. Now, bring Win32 platforms into the mix and SSH really isn't
> an option at all...not without bringing extra boxes to the mix. Ack!

Not so. See http://www.openssh.org/windows.html.

> If I implement compression between the BE and the FE libpq, does that
> mean that it needs to be added to the other interfaces as well?

Yes.

> Is there any documentation which covers the current protocol
> implementation?

Yes. See the protocol chapter in the developer's guide.

> Have you never had to support a database via modem?

Yes. ssh has always worked fine for me ;-)

> You do realize that this situation
> if more common that you seem to think it is?

I was not the person claiming that low-bandwidth situations are of no
interest. I was the person claiming that the Postgres project should
not expend effort on coding and maintaining our own solutions, when
there are perfectly good solutions available that we can sit on top of.

Yes, a solution integrated into Postgres would be easier to use and
perhaps a bit more efficient --- but do the incremental advantages of
an integrated solution justify the incremental cost? I don't think so.
The advantages seem small to me, and the long-term costs not so small.

regards, tom lane