Re: libpq compression

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>, Daniil Zakhlystov <usernamedt(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>, Konstantin Knizhnik <k(dot)knizhnik(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Denis Smirnov <sd(at)arenadata(dot)io>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: libpq compression
Date: 2020-12-22 20:46:27
Message-ID: 654473.1608669987@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 2:33 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> I'd assume that there's a direct correlation between the compression level
>> setting and the window size; but I've not studied the libzstd docs in
>> enough detail to know what it is.

> But there is a privilege boundary between the sender and the receiver.
> What's alleged here is that the sender can do a thing which causes the
> receiver to burn through tons of memory. It doesn't help anything to
> say, well, the sender ought to use a window size of N or less. What if
> they don't?

The receiver rejects the data as though it were corrupt.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Fabien COELHO 2020-12-22 20:50:36 Re: [PATCH] Automatic HASH and LIST partition creation
Previous Message Robert Haas 2020-12-22 20:16:58 Re: libpq compression