| From: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_basebackup compression TODO item |
| Date: | 2016-03-03 17:44:24 |
| Message-ID: | CABUevEzei1MXSc-LDK=uOMpa6GZgUYTd=VNqHH_F2KoKrOqgFw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 6:34 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)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.
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2016-03-03 17:56:41 | Re: pg_basebackup compression TODO item |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2016-03-03 17:41:56 | Re: pg_basebackup compression TODO item |