From: | "Shulgin, Oleksandr" <oleksandr(dot)shulgin(at)zalando(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Aleksander Alekseev <a(dot)alekseev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
Cc: | Shay Rojansky <roji(at)roji(dot)org>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Wire protocol compression |
Date: | 2016-04-21 12:35:42 |
Message-ID: | CACACo5QabX=RRT8-wdq7+Mbx+zEc6bEmY8UReBAc=eGtLUGhfQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Aleksander Alekseev <
a(dot)alekseev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> wrote:
> > Does it make sense to you guys to discuss compression outside of TLS?
> > There are potentially huge bandwidth savings which could benefit both
> > WAN and non-WAN scenarios, and decoupling this problem from TLS would
> > make it both accessible to everyone (assuming PostgreSQL clients
> > follow). It would be a protocol change though.
>
> I personally don't think it's something that should be implemented in
> PostgreSQL core. As a third-party TCP-proxy (on both client and server
> sides) with gzip/lz4 support perhaps. I'll be not surprised if it turns
> out that such projects already exist.
>
Hm, did you see this recent discussion on -hackers:
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAMkU=1zt9cjaQjVYAmywcP9iyxMJxFBUaVeB1eiaqBP=gejvDg(at)mail(dot)gmail(dot)com#CAMkU=1zt9cjaQjVYAmywcP9iyxMJxFBUaVeB1eiaqBP=gejvDg@mail.gmail.com
?
I guess since the usual answer for compression was "use what SSL provides
you for free", it's rather unlikely that someone bothered to make a proxy
just for that purpose, and really, a proxy is just another moving part in
your setup: not everyone will be thrilled to add that.
--
Alex
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2016-04-21 12:44:54 | Re: Optimization for updating foreign tables in Postgres FDW |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2016-04-21 12:32:17 | Re: Timeline following for logical slots |