Re: libpq compression

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Konstantin Knizhnik <k(dot)knizhnik(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Grigory Smolkin <g(dot)smolkin(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: libpq compression
Date: 2018-06-05 07:09:28
Message-ID: 20180605070928.GA4973@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 06:04:21PM +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 3:54 AM, Konstantin Knizhnik
> Speaking of configuration, are you planning to support multiple
> compression libraries at the same time? It looks like the current
> patch implicitly requires client and server to use the same configure
> option, without any attempt to detect or negotiate. Do I guess
> correctly that a library mismatch would produce an incomprehensible
> corrupt stream message?

I just had a quick look at this patch, lured by the smell of your latest
messages... And it seems to me that this patch needs a heavy amount of
work as presented. There are a couple of things which are not really
nice, like forcing the presentation of the compression option in the
startup packet to begin with. The high-jacking around secure_read() is
not nice either as it is aimed at being a rather high-level API on top
of the method used with the backend. On top of adding some
documentation, I think that you could get some inspiration from the
recent GSSAPI encription patch which has been submitted again for v12
cycle, which has spent a large amount of time designing its set of
options.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Rowley 2018-06-05 07:22:31 Re: Spilling hashed SetOps and aggregates to disk
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2018-06-05 06:44:28 Re: commitfest 2018-07